MAHANT BALRAM DASS Vs. VIRINDER PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-landlord (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed an application for ejectment against the tenant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) on various grounds.

(2.) On 4.9.1989 i.e. two days prior to the fixed date, the landlord moved an application (with no objection from the counsel for the tenant) along with a medical certificate for a longer adjournment. This application was rejected by the impugned order and the Rent Controller, order the closure of the evidence of the landlord. The landlord has come up in revision against the said order.

(3.) Admittedly, the landlord had met with an accident and he moved an application for adjournment alongwith a medical certificate with no objection from the counsel opposite to the adjournment being granted. In my view, under the circumstances, the Rent Controller was not justified in closing the evidence of the landlord. In view of this, the revision petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 6.9.1989 passed by the Rent Controller, is set aside. The Rent Controller is directed to make available to the landlord Dasti summons for summoning the landlord's witnesses on which date the landlord shall conclude his evidence. The tenant-respondent would also be grated an adequate opportunity for leading his evidence. No costs.