SHAKUNTLA Vs. INDERPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed, dated 26.10.2015, rendered by Rent Controller, Gurgaon, application moved by the tenant-petitioners, to adduce additional evidence, had since been dismissed. The conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller reads as thus:

(2.) Concededly, eviction of the petitioner No.1 is being claimed on account of non-payment of rent and personal bona fide necessity of respondent No.1, namely, Inderpal Singh son of late Amarjeet Singh, as he intends to set up a computer business in the premises in question. All what is sought to be brought on record by way of additional evidence is that Inderpal Singh happens to be a Law Graduate and is appearing as Advocate in various cases pending in District Court, Gurgaon. Whereas, in response, it has been clarified that he would visit District Court, Gurgaon, only to repair computers of Advocates. Neither any specific averment as to which are the matters in which Inderpal Singh appeared as an Advocate nor any authentic or credible material was appended with the application moved by the petitioners. Concernedly, respondent No.1 is a Law Graduate, but he is not enrolled either with any State Bar Council or Bar Council of India and is, thus, not qualified to appear as an Advocate in any court. Concernedly, both the parties have led their evidence and the application was moved when the matter was listed for arguments. Ex facie, the purpose was only to delay and derail the proceedings.

(3.) No ground is made out to interfere with the order being assailed, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.