LACHMAN DASS Vs. BALBIR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord-petitioner has filed this revision against the order of the Rent Controller, Jind, dated March 9, 1979, whereby his application for additional evidence under order 18 Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

(2.) The landlord-petitioner filed an application in March 1976, for ejectment against the tenant respondent on the ground of the sub-letting. He closed his evidence on August 24, 1978 and the respondent-tenant also finished his evidence on October 18, 1978. It was on January 19, 1979, that the landlord made an application for additional evidence as contemplated under order 18, Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The document sought to be produced is a partnership deed dated July 1, 1974, executed between the tenants and a copy of the assessment register of the Municipality, Jind, for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Rent Controller rejected the application on the ground that the landlord has not been able to make out a case for permission in terms of Order 18 Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Feeling aggrieved against this order the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure as such are not applicable to these proceedings under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. In support of his contention he cited Babu Ram v. Charan Dass and another, 1977 1 RCR(Rent) 212 . It has been held therein that under the Rent Restriction Act, the proceedings are of a summary nature and there has not to be strict compliance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In order to determine the real controversy between the parties and to do full justice, the Rent Controller should have allowed the production of the partnership deed. It was further contended on the basis of an authority in Kishanchand v. Kundanlal,1967 69 PunLR 95 that a landlord being a stranger to the agreements of sub-letting between his tenant and sub-lesses, he has generally to rely on attending circumstances to establish sub-letting by necessary interference. Under these circumstances the partnership deed between the tenants is a material piece of evidence for proving the sub-tenancy. Reliance has also been placed on Subhash Chander alias Bachani v. Balwant Singh and another, 1976 RCR(Rent) 349 , in which it has been held that the power of the Rent Controller to permit additional evidence even after arguments have been concluded are there. On the basis of these authorities it has been submitted that the Rent Controller has acted illegally in declining the application. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the order of the Rent Controller could not be interfered within the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and in any case the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure have not complied with the Rent Controller rightly dismissed the application.