MOHAN LAL Vs. MANOHAR LAL MAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is against the order of the appellate authority dated 2.2.1995 permitting the landlord to adduce additional evidence in the pending -appeal. Respondent filed an eviction application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act on the ground of arrears of rent and that the premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence led found merit in the plea of the respondent and so passed an order for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the building in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Dis -satisfied with the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority. It is during the pendency of the appeal that the respondent filed an application under Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act to lead additional evidence. It was averred that on account of subsequent events and fresh facts which have come to notice, the necessary permission be granted to adduce in evidence the report of the Local Commission, who has examined the adjacent properties of the respondent, which also throws light upon the condition of the intervening wall of the premises in possession of the petitioner. This application was registered by the respondent. Considering the submissions made, the appellate authority found substance in the plea of the respondent and so granted the prayer to place on record the reports of the Local Commission subject to, however, of producing the Local Commissioner for cross -examination of the petitioner as well as permitting the petitioner to lead any evidence in rebuttal to the report of the Local Commissioner.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the appellant authority exceeded in its jurisdiction while granting the prayer for the additional evidence made by the respondent. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, matter having been decided in favour of the respondent by the Rent Controller, the permission sought and granted by the appellate authority to adduce in evidence the report of the Local Commissioner appointed in another Court is quiet exceptional. According to the counsel, the petitioner has been greatly prejudiced by this Order. Had the Commissioner examined the premises after serving notice upon the petitioner, the matter would have been entirely different? This way the petitioner's claim clearly stands prejudiced. In any case, the report of the Local Commissioner on the adjoining building can have hardly any bearing upon the matter in controversy to be adjudicated by the appellate authority.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent supporting the order of the appellate authority, highlighted the factual aspect that the location of the disputed portion vis -a -vis the adjoining portions forms one composite building. According to the counsel, he intervening wall of shops in possession of other tenants, namely, Lai Singh and Jeewan Dass and of the property in possession of the petitioner is common. It is with a view to fortify the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller that building in dispute is in a dilapidated condition that the reports of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court in other eviction applications have become necessary. According to counsel, power of the appellate authority under Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act is in no manner circumscribed as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The appellate authority is well within its power to hold such further enquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the contractor. Adverting to the impugned order, the learned counsel for the respondent highlighted the jurisdiction of the Court to the effect that the report submitted by the Local Commissioner in eviction applications in the case of Jeewan Dass and Lai Singh has become necessary to adjudicate the matter in a satisfactory manner. Thus, the appellate authority, after assessing the respective submissions has come to this conclusion which cannot be said to be vitiated in any manner. Moreover, the impugned order does not prejudice the petitioner in any manner, especially when it has been made incumbent upon the respondent to produce the Local Commissioner for cross -examination of the -petitioner and as well as permitted the petitioner to lead any evidence in rebuttal to the report of the Local Commissioner.