KRISHAN LAL Vs. AJIT PRASAD JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) Since a very short point is involved in the petition I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and proceed to decide the petition itself.

(3.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 6th October 1987. The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi pursuant to the orders of this Court gave one final opportunity to the petitioner herein to adduce his evidence. However, on the date fixed, one witness namely Shri Mam Raj was present, but the lawyer of the petitioner was stated to be out of station and, therefore, a prayer for adjournment was made. The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi did not accede to this request because this Court had specifically directed that one last final opportunity be given to the petitioner to adduce his evidence. In that sense the Additional Rent Controller was helpless because he was bound to follow and obey the order of this Court. Ordinirily, this Court would not have interfered in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because there is no apparent error in the order of the Additional Rent Controller, however considering that one witness was present on the date fixed for the evidence of the petitioner, I think that interest of justice requires that one more opportunity should be given to the petitioner to examine the witness who was present on that date. This is because on the date fixed the petitioner could not examine this witness because the advocate was absent and the party Should not suffer because of the lapse of the advocate