VIKRAM SHARMA Vs. SUSHIL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 02.07.2016 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala, whereby the application for additional evidence preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had moved an application for leading additional evidence and that too for placing on record certified copy of the sale deed dated 27.11.2015, whereby the respondent-landlord has sold his shop to one Smt. Kusum Lata and the other document is the handing over of the vacant possession by another tenant of a shop qua whom the ejectment order dated 03.03.2016 has been passed which is also owned by the respondent. He contends that these documents were not to the knowledge of the petitioner when the order dated 09.12.2015 was passed by this Court in a revision petition granting the petitioner one last opportunity to examine his witness subject to costs. He, however, fairly admits that despite opportunity given by the Rent Controller to the petitioner in compliance with the order passed by this Court, no further evidence was led by the petitioner and the evidence was closed by the Rent Controller by order. He submits that the delay itself should not be a ground for not permitting the leading of an additional evidence, especially when the petitioner was not in knowledge of the fact that a sale deed has taken place of the shop and one of the adjacent shops has been evicted and possession handed over on 03.03.2016. Counsel, thus, contends that the order impugned in the present revision petition dated 02.07.2016, does not sustain and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of this Court in Jeeto @ Smt. Manjit Kaur Versus Union of India, 2007 4 RCR(Civ) 408 and Ram Niwas Versus Kalu Ram and another, 2012 4 RCR(Civ) 56.