SUNDER LAL Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 28th April 1987 whereby the evidence of the petitioner herein was closed.

(2.) VIDE order dated 20th March, 1987 I had directed that one final opportunity be given to the petitioner to produce his evidence. The petitioner had undertaken to serve the official witnesses Dasti and accordingly three official witnesses were summoned for a date fixed by the Additional Rent Controller. From the record, it appears that the Food Inspector though served did not appear on the date fixed whereas two other witnesses namely, Director E.S.I. and Inspector House-tax refused to accept notice and, therefore, they were deemed to have been served. The Additional Rent Controller closed the evidence because I had directed to conclude the evidence of the petitioner herein in the month of April 1987 and dispose of the case within two months.

(3.) THE Additional Rent Controller may also take steps as provided by law, against the official witnesses who had been summoned and served and yet failed to appear on the date fixed, irrespective of the fact that it is necessary to summons these witnesses again for deciding the case. Needless to say that a witnesses when summoned by Court is duty bound to appear on the summoned date and if he fails to appear without any valid reason, Court must take notice of such disobedience of summons.