MOHINDER SINGH Vs. BALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petition for ejectment of the contesting respondent is pending adjudication before the Rent Controller. After conclusion of evidence by the petitioner-landlord, when the petition was pending for recording of evidence by the respondent-landlord, he moved an application for taking specimen samples of the voice of petitioner Mohinder Singh and proforma-respondent Popinder Singh so that their voice could be compared with the voice recorded in the CD on the basis of memory card recorded through mobile phone wherein petitioner Mohinder Singh has allegedly conceded for continuance of tenancy of the respondent on enhancement of rent.

(2.) Notwithstanding contest being made by the petitioner and proforma-respondents to such application, vide impugned order of 9.2.2012 (Annexure P-6), this application of the contesting-respondent/tenant was allowed.

(3.) Impugning the said order, it is claimed that once CD is already on record allegedly containing conversation of petitioner Mohinder Singh and proforma-respondent Popinder Singh on one side and of tenant Baljit Singh on the other hand, comparison with voice samples is not permissible. It is also claimed that the Rent Controller was to give a finding of relevance of contents of CD and was to proceed only thereafter with regard to comparison of voices of the persons, record of conversation of whom,the CD was allegedly having. It is claimed that the Rent Controller exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and has failed to appreciate that the contesting respondent is adopting delaying tactics to prolong the litigation as he is enjoying the possession of the rented premises whereas the landlords have bonafide personal necessity.