PIARE LAL Vs. GOBIND RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN an application for eviction of the tenant -petitioner the evidence of both sides having concluded and final arguments having been heard, the date was fixed for Judgment on February 28, 1977. The petition for eviction had been filed by the landlord -respondent on May 2, 1974. On the day fixed for judgment the landlord -respondent filed an application for leave to prove the site -plan of the premises in dispute which had been filed by him with the petition. The application was opposed on the ground that it was highly belated and that there was no earthly reason why the plan could not be proved by the respondent earlier. In the written reply filed by the tenant, the correctness of the plan was also denied. By this order dated March 15, 1977, the Rent Controller Moga, has allowed the application on payment of Rs. 15/ - as costs.

(2.) MR . M.L. Sarin, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued, that the application of the respondent should have been dismissed by the trial Court. The order of the trial Court allowing the application was within jurisdiction and I am unable to find my way to reverse the same in exercise of revisional powers of this Court under sub -section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as there is neither any illegality nor any impropriety in the order. The application was, however, inordinately delayed and the nominal costs of Rs. 15/ - awarded by the trial Court appear to me to be unfair to the tenant -petitioner. While upholding the permission granted by the Rent Controller to the landlord -respondent to prove the plan, I direct that the permission shall be conditional on payment by the respondent to the counsel for the tenant -petitioner a sum of Rs. 50/ - as costs. It goes without saying that as soon as this additional evidence not originally led by the landlord is allowed to be produced by admitting the plan into evidence, the tenant -petitioner would be entitled to an adequate opportunity to rebut the new piece of evidence by showing that the plan is not correct. This revision petition is, therefore, partially allowed to that extent without any order as to costs. The parties have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Moga on November 7, 1977.