DEEPAK JAIN Vs. ABHISHEK GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who is alleged to be a sub -tenant in the demised premises has approached this Court challenging the order dated 6.6.2011 passed by Rent Controller Rewari, whereby evidence of the respondents has been closed by order of the Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, respondent No.1 filed an eviction petition under section 13 of the Haryana (Urban Control of Rent and Eviction)Act, 1973, inter alia, on the ground of personal necessity, non payment of rent, the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that respondent No.2 Mohar Singh has sub -let the premises in question to the petitioner.

(3.) THE eviction petition was contested by the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 by filing written statement and refuting the averments made in the eviction application. The issues were framed on 4.11.2008. The aforesaid order reads as: - "Present: Shri R.K.Saini,Counsel for the petitioner. Ah.D.K.Sharma, Counsel for respondents. Sh.D.N.Gupta, Counsel for Applicant Anill and others. - On the pleadings of the parties the following issues are hereby framed: 1. Whether the respondent is required to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground mentioned in the petition ? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? 3. Relief. No other issue is pressed or claimed by the parties. Onus not objected to. Case to come up on 27.11.2009 for evidence of the plaintiff at own responsibility". Thereafter, evidence of respondent No.1 landlord was closed vide order dated 3.3.2011, and the case was adjourned to 23.3.2011 for evidence of the respondent. However, no witness of the petitioner and respondent No.2 was present on that date and the case was adjourned to 8.4.2011 and again on the request of the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 the case was adjourned to 27.4.2011. On that day also no evidence of the petitioner and respondent No.2 was present. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 28.4.2011 for evidence of the petitioner and respondent No.2 at their own responsibility. However, on 28.4.2011 fresh vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the petitioner and request was made for adjournment to bring evidence. The case was adjourned to 6.6.2011 for entire evidence of the petitioner and respondent No.2 at their own responsibility. It was also mentioned that the last opportunity is granted. The various zimni orders reads as follows: - "Present: Sh.R.K.Saini,counsel for petitioner. Sh.RamPhal Yadav, counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. Sh.D.N.Gupta, counsel for applicants Anil and others. No RW is present today. Request is made. Now case is adjourned to 08.04.2011 for evidence of respondents at their own responsibility. Dated: 23.03..2011 Sd/ - A.C.J.M.Rewari". "Present: Sh.R.K.Saini,counsel for petitioner. Sh.Ramphal Yadav, counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. Sh.D.N.Gupta, counsel for applicants Anil and others. - No RW is present today. Request is made. Now case is adjourned to 27.04.2011 for evidence of respondents at their own responsibility. Dated: 08.04.2011 Sd/ -C.J.(SD)Rewari". "Present: Sh.R.K.Saini,counsel for petitioner. Sh.Ramphal Yadav, counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. Sh.A.K.Tewari proxy counsel for applicants Anil and others. - On the joint request of counsel for the parties the case is adjourned to 28.4.2011 for evidence of respondents at own responsibility. Sd/ - C.J.(SD) Rewari. 27.4.2011". "Present: Sh.R.K.Saini,counsel for petitioner. Sh.RamPhal Yadav, counsel for respondent No.1. Sh.Parvinder Yadav,counsel for respondent No.2 Sh.D.N.Gupta, counsel for applicants Anil and others. - Fresh vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2 filed. Request is made for evidence. Now case is adjourned to 06.06.2011 for entire evidence of the respondents at their own responsibility, Last opportunity is granted. Dated:28.04.2011 Sd/ -C.J.(SD) Rewari". On 6.6.2011, no evidence of the petitioner and respondent No.2 was present and accordingly the Rent Controller,Rewari, vide impugned order dated 6.6.2011 held that no further adjournment/opportunity wa justified and the petitioner and respondent No.2 want to prolong the case for one or the other reason and closed the evidence by order of the Court.