PREM KUMAR Vs. NARINDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the tenant-petitioner has challenged the order passed by learned Rent Controller, Nabha on 12.9.2007 to the extent the petitioner was not allowed to examine the official of M/s. H.F.C.L. Infotel Limited (for short 'the Company').

(2.) THE petitioner had earlier filed an application before the learned Rent Controller for amendment of his written statement so as to permit him to plead that the landlord's son Tek Pal Singh had let out a shop situated near Balmiki Mandir at Bhuran Gate, Nabha to the Company at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month and the landlord also constructed another shop adjacent to aforesaid shop and his other shops and was in possession of the same. Further that a big commercial plot was situated in between those premises which was in possession of the landlord. The entire commercial property was situated within the municipal limits of Nabha. This application for amendment was dismissed by learned Rent Controller, which order was challenged by the petitioner, i.e., tenant by filing Civil Revision No. 3558 of 2007. During the hearing of the said revision, learned counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner submitted that the amendment in the written statement would not serve the purpose, instead he would file an application for additional evidence before the learned Rent Controller to prove the fact that Tek Pal Singh, son of the landlord, had let out a shop to the Company on the monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- in the year 2006 and the rent was being deposited in his account with the U.T.I. Bank, Nabha (for short 'the Bank'). In view of the same, the revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn by giving liberty to the tenant-petitioner of filing an application for additional evidence.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner that merely summoning and examining Clerk of the Bank with record would not serve the purpose as he has to establish that the landlord's son Tek Pal Singh had let out the shop to the Company and the rent was being deposited in his account in the Bank. The Clerk of the Bank would only mention about the deposit of the amount of Rs. 2,000/- every month in the account but it would not establish that the said deposit was on account of rent, which was being paid by the Company unless and until some official of the Company is summoned and examined by him. The liberty granted to the tenant-petitioner by this Court, while disposing of Civil Revision No. 3558 of 2007 would be meaningless if the tenant is not permitted to summon and examine the concerned official of the Company. Therefore, it was prayed that the order passed by learned Rent Controller, Nabha to the extent it did not allow the tenant to summon the official of the Company, be set aside.