NIRANJAN DASS Vs. GURDIAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision filed by the respondents tenants against the order dated September 10, 1975 of the Rent Controller, Kharar, whereby be closed their evidence and adjourned the case for the rebuttal evidence of the petitioner.

(2.) Gurdial Chand petitioner filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act against Shiam Lal and Niranjan Dass for ejectment on 25-10-1971. The affirmative evidence of the landlord in this case was closed on 20-10-1973 and thereafter the case was adjourned to 8-1-1974 for the evidence of the respondents. No witnesses was present on that day and the case was adjourned to 7-3-1974. On that day three witnesses were examined by the petitioners and thereafter the case was adjourned to various dates. One witness was examined by him on 6-8-1974, one witness on 21-11-1974 and one witness on 7-1-1975. A Clerk of the Income-tax office, Chandigarh, had also been summoned for that date i.e. 7-1-1975, but his summons were not received back. The case was then adjuourned for his evidence to 30-1-1975 and 27-2-1975, but he was not served. The case was then adjourned to 6-3-1975. The Clerk of the Income-tax office was served for that date, but he did not appear in spite of service and bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 500 were issued against him on payment of process-fee. He was summoned for various other dates. On 28-8-1975, the Rent Controller ordered that the petitioner has neither placed any document on the file or its copy which is to be got proved from that Clerk and it is not shown in his applicant that what is the nature of his evidence. He, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall produce that clerk at his own responsibility on 10-9-1975 and he shall also produce on 4-9-1975 the copy of the document which he wants to get proved from that Clerk. On 10-9-1975, the following impugned order was passed;

(3.) Mr.S.K. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the wants to prove his partnership with other persons and for this purpose he has summoned the Clerk of the income Tax Department to produce the returns submitted by him in the Department during the previous years. He did not produce any copies of the documents which he wants to summon from that Clerk. It was admitted that a partnership deed to prove the alleged partnership exists and it has been placed on the file. He also stated that there are entries in the account books of the firm about this partnership and the same have been placed on the file. For the last about two years and four months, the petitioner is not closing his evidence. It was stated before me at the bar that the document which is sought to be proved from that Clerk is not relied upon nor its copy has been produced in court uptil now. It seems that service is not effected on that Clerk intentionally with a view to prolong the decision of this case, which is pending since the year 1971. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, I hold that the order of the Rent Controller refusing permission to produce the Clerk of Income-tax Department is correct and the same is affirmed.