SMT. RAKSHA DEVI Vs. MADAN LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present revision petition by the tenant is to the non-appointment of the Local Commissioner for visiting the premises in question for the purpose that the shop had not remained unoccupied for 4 months which was the ground of eviction by the landlords under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Rent Controller has held that the case was fixed for the petitioner's-tenant's evidence since 11.09.2013 and last opportunity was granted on 12.03.2014 but evidence had not been concluded. The application had been filed at the fag end of the trial and it was the duty of the tenants to lead sufficient evidence to prove their case and the collection of evidence could not be asked through appointment of Local Commissioner. Resultantly, the application was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 08.04.2015 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) Admittedly, it is settled principle that a revision as such against declining of appointment of Local Commissioner is not maintainable. Reference can be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pritam Singh and another v. Sunder Lal and others, 1990 (2) PLR 191. The relevant para read as under:-

(3.) Even otherwise, the cause of action as such is to the landlord at the time of filing of the ejectment petition i.e. 16.11.2009 at that point of time and an application which was filed after 6 years would not help the Rent Controller in deciding the issue in any manner.