D R KAPUR SUPDT ENGINEER Vs. RATTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated 11th of October, 1976 by which he dismissed the application filed by the tenant appellant wherein he had prayed for issuance of commission for recording the evidence of Shri N.L. P uri and Shri Gautam Roy. Shri N.L. Puri resides at Srinagar whereas Shri Gautam Roy resides at Calcutta. The plea of the tenant is that the landlord wanted to increase the rent and at one time it was in the presence of these two witnesses and that the question of in increase of rent was talked between the landlord and the tenant. The learned Rent Controller recorded a finding that the said witnesses are being cited with a view to delay the proceedings and therefore, dismissed the application.

(2.) Mr. D.R. Kapur, who appears in person, relies on a Bench decision of Madras High Court in A.V. Nataraja Konar v. Poonvalingam Pillai, 1967 2 MadLJ 369 and contends that the provisions of order 26 Rule 4 are mandatory and, therefore, the Rent Controller should not have dismissed his application. He also relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Filimistan Private Ltd., Bombay v. M/s. Bhagwandas Santprakash and another, 1971 AIR(SC) 61

(3.) On the other hand Mr. C. B. Goel, the learned counsel for the landlord contends that the said witnesses have been cited with a view to delay the proceedings. He contends that after the revision petition was admitted, Shri D. R. Kapoor made a statement on 10th March, 1977, and even in the said statement, he did not make mention of any talk regarding the increase of the rent in the presence of the witnesses, who are sought to be produced.