KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. MOHAN LAL (SINCE DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed, dated 29.07.2015, rendered by the Rent Controller, Hisar, application moved by the tenant-petitioner to disallow the evidence of Arvind Kumar (PW5), landlord, in terms of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, had since been dismissed.

(2.) Concededly, Mohan Lal son of late Pandit Pushkar Dutt filed an eviction petition and ejectment of the tenantpetitioner was sought on account of arrears of rent and as the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. For, during the pendency of the proceedings Mohan Lal (landlord) passed away, his widow, two sons and a daughter were brought on record as his legal representatives. Landlord-respondents, in support of their claim, examined a few witnesses as also the widow of late Mohan Lal, namely, Sumitra Devi on 06.02.2015. Examination-in-chief of the son of the landlord, namely, Arvind Kumar, was also recorded on 09.07.2015. And twice the matter was adjourned, pursuant to the request of the counsel for the tenant, to cross-examine the said witness. But subsequently, rather an application was moved, in reference to the provisions of Rule 3-A of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure [CPC], to disallow Arvind Kumar to appear as his own witness. It was maintained that if Arvind Kumar intended to appear as his own witness, he could examine himself before examining his other witnesses, and at this stage his evidence could not be recorded except with the prior permission of the court. But as the said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, vide order dated 29.07.2015, tenant is in revision before this court. The operative part of the said order reads as thus:

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.