AMIT KUMAR Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision petition is order dtd. 11/10/2019 passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide which an application under Sec. 151 CPC filed by respondent/tenant for leading additional evidence had been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that petitioner/landlord Surinder Kumar had brought an ejectment petition against respondent/tenant Amit Kumar, on getting notice of which, he had put in appearance and contested the said petition. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent/tenant had filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence contending that earlier some other counsel was representing such respondent/tenant, however due to his unsatisfactory response, the respondent/tenant had engaged a new counsel and such new counsel while preparing final arguments came to know that due to non advise of the earlier counsel, some important witnesses could not be examined, which are very important for proper and just decision of the case.

(3.) Inter alia, in the application, it was contended that petitioner/landlord is relying upon a forged and fabricated rent agreement dtd. 20/5/2015, whereas no such agreement was ever executed by respondent/tenant in favour of the petitioner/landlord. This has been so mentioned in the written reply to the ejectment petition filed by respondent/tenant and in order to establish that fact the respondent/tenant wanted to examine the following witnesses: