BRIJ MOHAN Vs. PARVEEN KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition filed by the tenant is to the order dated 15.7.2013, vide which his evidence was closed by order of the court and also order dated 13.8.2013, vide which the application filed by the petitioner for re-calling thereof was dismissed. Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the petitioner had taken ground floor of SCF No. 31, Phase 3B2, Mohali on rent in the year 1985 from Mohinder Singh Deol at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,700/- with annual increase of 10%. Mohinder Singh Deol expired in September, 2006. The eviction petition was filed by the respondents on 4.3.2011, inter-alia, on the ground of personal necessity. After service of the petitioner-tenant, he filed reply to the petition. Thereafter, issues were framed on 17.8.2011 and the case was fixed for evidence of the respondents-landlords, who closed their evidence on 1.8.2012 and thereafter the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner-tenant. Despite availing number of opportunities, when the petitioner failed to conclude his evidence, the same was closed by the court on 15.7.2013. An application for re-calling of that order was filed by the petitioner on 22.7.2013. During the pendency hereof, a petition was filed in this court vide diary No. 1040779 on 5.8.2013 challenging the same very order dated 15.7.2013. However, the same was never re-filed. The application filed by the petitioner for re-calling of the order dated 15.7.2013 was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 13.8.2013. The present petition has been filed thereafter impugning the orders dated 15.7.2013 and 13.8.2013.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not at fault. He had deposited the Diet Money and got the summons issued for the witnesses to be examined. As they had not been served, the evidence of the petitioner could not have been closed by order of the court. In case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will conclude his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility. He further submitted that the application for re-calling of the order dated 15.7.2013 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Rent Controller as not maintainable, which is contrary to the law laid down by this court in Civil Revision No. 5639 of 2012-Santosh Kumar Berry v. Nirmala Devi and others,2013 1 169 PunLR 404decided on 25.9.2012 and San-jay Kumar v. Vinod,2013 3 CCC 280. The aforesaid judgments were even circulated to the Judicial Officers.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that 11 effective opportunities were granted to the petitioner for leading his evidence. He did not avail of the same. The zimni orders passed by the Rent Controller on various dates of hearing, as reproduced in the petition, are not correct. The petitioner has, in fact, tried to mislead the court by producing wrong orders. The petitioner, in fact, had been granted Last opportunity and also directed to take dasti summons to procure the presence of witnesses, but he failed to avail of the opportunity. While referring to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s. Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and others,2012 1 165 PunLR 407, it was submitted that grant of more than three opportunities for leading evidence has been deprecated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court observing that adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system.