HARKEWAL KAUR Vs. SRI KRISHAN AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated 31.8.2010 passed by Rent Controller, Jalandhar by which an application filed by the landlord for leading additional evidence in order to place on record Income Tax Return of the sub-tenant (Respondent No. 2) for the year 2008-2009 and also to examine the Income Tax Officer concerned to prove that the sub-tenant is paying rent of the demised premises to Respondent No. 1 has been declined on the ground that evidence of the Petitioners has been closed by order of the Court which has remained unchallenged. In this regard, reliance was placed on "Bhim Raj v. Jai Bhagwan, 2000 125 PunLR 208 .

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') was filed by the Petitioners seeking eviction of the tenant, inter alia, on the ground of arrears of rent, cease to occupy, subletting and also that the premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 18.10.2004. The ground of subletting was added by way of amendment of the petition on the basis of which an additional issue 6-A was framed on 24.5.2006, which is reproduced as under:

(3.) In the cross-examination, Shri Krishan Aggarwal (RW 1) stated that he and his son have not filed Income Tax Return till date. At that time Petitioners were not aware that Respondent No. 2 is an income tax payee but on enquiry, they found that he is income tax Assessee and has filed his Income Tax Return for the year 2008-2009. The Petitioners also obtained copy of the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2008-2009 and in order to prove it they wanted to produce it on record and also wanted to examine an Income Tax Officer. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also submits that in the normal circumstances if the order by which the evidence is closed is not challenged, the additional evidence cannot be allowed but the additional evidence which is sought to be produced on record was not within the knowledge of the Petitioners despite exercise of due diligence, therefore, it deserves to be allowed. In this regard, he has relied upon decisions of this Court in the case of "Ved Parkash v. Raj Rani Singla, 2000 126 PunLR 489, Aggarwal Cotton Waste Co. v. Shree Singhai Spinners Pvt. Ltd.,2004 1 PunLR 781, Phuman Singh and Anr. v. Hazara Singh and Ors.,2009 3 PunLR 232, Pawan Kumar v. Raj Kumar and Ors.,2007 1 PunLR 761, Bhajan Singh and Ors. v. Karnail Singh,2010 3 RCR 355 .