(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 29.8.2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Moga whereby the evidence of the tenant-petitioner has been closed by order. The landlord-respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 ('Act for short) seeking eviction of the present petitioner from the shop in dispute. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was disputed by the petitioner. In fact, it is the stand of the petitioner that one Harbans lal s/o Sh. Mohan Lal is in possession of the disputed premises and he is running STD/PCO since 1996. During the proceedings in the case, the landlord-respondent closed his evidence on 1.3.2004 and thereafter the case was adjourned to 11.5.2004, 13.9.2004, 27.10.2004, 8.12.2004, 12.1.2005, 16.2.2005, 17.3.2005, 7.4.2005, 4.5.2005, 4.6.2005, 8.6.2005, 27.7.2005 and 29.8.2005 on which date the impugned order had been passed. In fact, it is contended that on the date the evidence of the petitioner was closed, her counsel moved an application (Annexure P-2) seeking adjournment on the ground that the respondent was not feeling well. However, the same has been rejected. It is contended that the landlord-respondent had closed his evidence on 1.3.2004 and the case for the evidence of the petitioner was fixed for the first time on 11.5.2004 and she applied for summoning of the witnesses on 29.3.2004 (Annexure P-3). Therefore, before the very first date for evidence of the petitioner, she filed an application for summoning the witnesses and also deposited the diet money on 31.3.2004. Besides, she has given up one witness and only one summoned witness of Canara bank and the petitioner herself are to be examined. As such, it is submitted that the ground for closing the evidence of the petitioner is clearly unwarranted.
(2.) IN response, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that a perusal of the various interim orders passed by the Rent Controller would show that the petitioner has been granted sufficient opportunities to lead her evidence and despite that she has not led the same. Therefore, the order that has been passed closing the evidence of the petitioner does not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 29.8.2005 (Annexure P- 1) passed by the Rent Controller, Moga is set aside and the petitioner is granted an effective opportunity to produce the Clerk concerned of the Canara Bank and also examine herself as a witness which shall however be subject to payment of Rs. 3000/- as costs by the petitioner to the respondent. Petition allowed.