VERSHA SOOD Vs. SHIV NANDAN LAL ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is a tenant. The suit for possession by way of his eviction filed within a period of 5 years from the date of issuance of a sewerage connection has been decreed. As per the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as '1949 Act'), the new building is exempt from applicability of the 1949 Act for the period of first five years. The landlord filed a suit after terminating the lease deed by sending a notice. The appellant, while defending did not dispute the tenancy, however, he claims that there was renewal of tenancy in terms of some settlement.

(2.) Both the courts on appreciation of evidence have decreed the suit. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their able assistance perused the paperbook. Learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the appellant was never served with a notice terminating the tenancy as the appellant was not available. He further contends that at one point of time the defence of the appellant was struck off. However, subsequently, in CR-929-2008 it was set aside. He submits that the appellant has not been granted an opportunity to cross examine the witness. Therefore, the judgments passed by the courts below are not sustainable.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel representing the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff examined four witnesses on his behalf on 16/3/2006. However, the court found that the counsel representing the defendant though appeared but shown his inability to cross-examine the witness. Thereafter, the court also noticed that the defendant has failed to pay the cost for the previous adjournment. While discharging the witnesses as their examination in chief was already recorded, the court struck off the defence of defendant. He further contends that on 17/4/2006 another witness was examined but the defendants did not come forward to cross examine the witness also. He further submits that in CR-929-2008, the High Court granted only one opportunity to the appellant to lead his entire evidence but no opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was granted. He further submits that an application for recalling as already examined witnesses filed by the appellant was withdrawn on 18/8/2008.