KARAM SINGH Vs. CHANAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 21st May, 1986 passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala, whereby he dismissed an application by the tenant petitioner praying for allowing him to adduce additional evidence in rebuttal.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, was filed by the landlord respondent for ejectment of the petitioner inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. It was alleged that the rate of rent for the premises in dispute was Rs. 500/- per month. The petitioner, on the other hand, after putting in appearance, set up the defence that the rate of rent agreed between the parties was Rs. 50/- per month and not Rs. 500/- per month as claimed by the respondent. Evidence was led by the petitioner in the first instance. It was at the stage of rebuttal evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent that the rent note purported to have been executed by the petitioner was produced and Diwan K.S. Puri, Document Expert, after examining the rent note, appeared as witness on behalf of the respondent and deposed that there was no interpolation in the rent note and that the rate of rent, as originally stipulated therein, was Rs. 500/- per month.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that the approach of the learned Rent Controller to the matter is not correct and by declining the application he has exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity. It has be positively asserted on behalf of the petitioner that the rent note in which the rate of rent was allegedly interpolated was produced for the first time by the respondent during the course of his evidence. This document was not available on the record when the petitioner filed his written statement or produced the evidence in the affirmative. He, therefore, could not predicate that any interpolation had been made in the rent note. It was only after the production of the same in court that he could set up such a case. In fact, the document expert produced on behalf of the respondent was cross-examined on behalf of petitioner at length and the same was directed solely on the question of interpolation in the rent note. It was, therefore, in the interest of justice that the petitioner should have been allowed to produce a document expert to rebut the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent.