VINOD THAPAR Vs. SEEMA MEHRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner - tenant is aggrieved of order dated 12.09.2014 [Annexure P/7] of Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby his application for adducing additional evidence has been dismissed.

(2.) At the outset, it may be mentioned that the Rent petition is pending since 16.08.2011. The case is at the final stage. Additional evidence sought to be produced by the petitioner-tenant also has no connection with the present petition.

(3.) Respondent - Dharminder Mehra in yet another eviction petition is being cross-examined wherein some deposition has been made regarding ownership of his property. In this petition, matter of ownership is nowhere in issue. Relationship of landlord and tenant has not been disputed by the petitioner-tenant. Perusal of the impugned order as also the grounds of revision do not make out a case for allowing of the application for additional evidence, particularly when the evidence sought to be produced is neither necessary nor required for effective adjudication of the matter in controversy. Authorities cited by the petitioner, i.e., Manmohan Singh Vs. Davinder Kaur @ Mohinder Kaur @ Gurminder Kaur and others, [Civil Revision No. 1765 of 2014, decided on 20.05.2014] and Charan Singh Vs. Ajit Singh, 1999 4 RCR(Civ) 589 do not help him because the evidence sought to be produced additionally would neither equip the Rent Controller better to decide the matter in dispute nor would help the petitioner-tenant to support and strengthen his case.