BHAGWAN SARUP SHARMA Vs. INDER MOHAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, closing the evidence of the petitioner, who is a tenant, vide order dated 22nd of July, 1981. It will be appropriate to have a look in to the history of this case. The petitioner, who is a tenant, has been accused of prolonging the proceedings in one way or the other. Noticing this attitude, the learned Rent Controller had earlier closed this evidence vide orders dated December 16th, 1980. The petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 207 of 1981 against that order and succeeded in getting a new lease for leading evidence. After the aforesaid revision was decided on 21st of April, 1981, the learned Rent Controller allowed him opportunities to bring the two official witnesses as directed by this court in the earlier revision. A look at the impugned order show that a clerk of the Bank appeared with record in court on 10th of June, 1981, but the petitioner and his counsel did not examine him. The learned Rent Controller recorded his observation about that conduct of the petitioner. Then the turn of the other official witness who is a Building Inspector of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, came, the petitioner again did not co-operate with the court to assists the Building Inspector to trace out the records of a case decided by the Corporation in the year 1976. The Building Inspector appeared on more than one occasion and showed his helplessness to trace the record in the absence of the particulars. In spite of the direction given by the learned Rent Controller neither the petitioner nor his counsel gave those particulars to the Building Inspector, so that he could bring the records wanted by the petitioner in court and testify as a witness in the case. It was after this that the learned Rent Controller closed the evidence.

(2.) The hostility of the case as noticed shows that the petitioner has been very non-cooperative with the court and defied directions for giving proper particulars to trace the records summoned by him. It appears that the observations of the learned Rent Controller that the petitioner who is a tenant, in his eagerness to avoid any adverse order of ejectment against him, was deliberately prolonging the case. The count of adjournments obtained by the petitioner for completing his evidence has been given as 20 by the learned Rent Controller. Premium cannot be put on such activities of a litigant, who flouts the direction of the court to complete the evidence and wants to drag on the proceedings to suit his convenience.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit in the petition it is dismissed.