RAMESH KUMAR Vs. AVINASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the tenant against the order of eviction passed by both the Courts below on an application filed by the landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short ' the Act') on the ground of personal necessity. The present revision petition contains two applications as well i.e. CM No. 32134-CII of 2012, in which the petitioner is seeking exemption from filing true typed copies of judgments dated 15.05.2009, 01.11.2007 and grounds of appeal dated 17.11.2007 and also seeks permission to place on record the photocopies of the same. The said application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The second application is CM No. 32135-CII of 2012 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 1271 in filing the petition. It is alleged therein that the petition was filed through Shri Parminder Singh Grewal, Advocate in the year 2009 though wrongly mentioned in the application as Shri Paramjit Singh Grewal, Advocate. It is alleged that the petition was filed with diary No. 396335 dated 24.08.2009. It is alleged that the said Advocate has been selected as Judicial Magistrate, who alleged to have taken the said petition back from the Registry but did not refile it. The petitioner then filed the present revision petition through the present counsel on 06.11.2012 and in this process the delay of 1271 days has occurred. The application is also supported by an affidavit. I will decide this application later on. In the meantime, adverting to the facts of the main case as it has also been argued by counsel for the petitioner alleging that the learned court below has committed an error in allowing the petition of the landlord despite the fact that he had taken a plea in the written statement that he is owner of the demised premises (shop) and it had never been sold to the petitioner/landlord as alleged on 07.11.2012. It is submitted that the learned courts below should have framed the relevant issue, but no issue was framed rather the case has been decided only on the basis of issue No.1 regarding the relationship of the landlord and tenant which though was denied by him. In support of his submission he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of "Hari Chand Vs. Krishan Kumar", 1998 3 RCR(Civ) 186to contend that additional issue can be framed at any stage and the prayer cannot be declined on the ground that the plaintiff has already led his evidence. He has also referred a decision of this Court in the case of "Rajinder Tandon Vs. Thomas Nasir Masih", 1999 1 RCR(Civ) 539, in which it has been held that it is the duty of the Court to frame proper issue on all the points made out from the pleadings and even if a party has not pressed any issue at the initial stage, it is not debarred from claiming an additional issue any later stage.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after examining the record, am of the considered opinion that the present revision petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. As a matter of fact, the petitioner/tenant did not lead any evidence despite the opportunities granted by the Rent Controller and in the absence of the evidence led by the petitioner, closed by the order of the Court, the evidence led by the landlord has been believed and the eviction order has been passed. The order of the trial Court regarding closing of the evidence was also challenged in appeal in terms of the Order 43 Rule 1-

(3.) Insofar as, the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Rent Controller should have framed an issue about the ownership of the the property in dispute as he has denied to have sold the demised premises to the petitioner, it would not effect the merit of the case, because any such issue was to be proved by the tenant by leading evidence but since he did not avail the opportunity to lead evidence despite the fact that three effective opportunities were granted and he did not examine himself at all, the issue raised before me is basically redundant.