RAJESHWAR PRASHAR Vs. URMILA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner(Tenant) is in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, against the order dated 02.09.2011(P-4) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar exercising the powers under the Rent Act, whereby the application filed by the respondent(landlady) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for examining Rakesh Chopra as witness by way of additional evidence has been allowed.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that respondent(landlady) had filed an ejectment application against the present petitioner(tenant) on the ground of personal necessity of his son Rakesh Chopra by stating that since Rakesh Chopra is not keeping well, therefore, the present shop is required for his business. Apart from this ground, certain other grounds were also taken. However, vide order dated 17.01.2009 the learned Rent Controller, Nakodar dismissed the eviction application on all the grounds including the ground of personal necessity by holding that Rakesh Chopra son of the present respondent(landlady) Urmila Rani has not been examined so as to prove the necessity of Rakesh Chopra and hence no ground is made out for ejectment on personal necessity.

(3.) Aggrieved against the same appeal, was preferred by the respondent(landlady) and after nearly 2-1/2 years of filing of the appeal, the present application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed for producing Rakesh Chopra by way of additional evidence.