RAJIV KATARIA Vs. RAMAN KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition directs challenge against order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh whereby application filed by the petitioner-landlord for summoning the witness was dismissed by closing evidence of the petitioner.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner filed application under Section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as applicable to Chandigarh) (in short "the Act") for ejectment of the respondent from first and second floor of House No. 3063, Sector-27-D, Chandigarh on the ground that the respondent-tenant is guilty of making alterations in the tenancy premises, materially impairing value and utility of the building as he has made additional accommodation and structural changes without permission of the petitioner-landlord and against sanctioned plan of the building, in violation of Chandigarh Byelaws.

(3.) It is argued that the eviction application was filed in the year 2013. During pendency of the case, a report dated 8.5.2015 was submitted by the Junior Engineer of the area concerned and a show cause notice under Rules 14 and 10 of the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007 read with Section 8-A of Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952 was issued calling upon the addressee to explain his position with regard to the changes made in the tenancy premises. It is further argued that the later developments that took place in the year 2015 were not in existence at the time of filing of eviction application. It is further argued that though there was some delay on part of the petitioner to file application for summoning Sh. Umed Singh, Junior Engineer from the office of SDO (Building) alongwith inspection report and show cause notice but this evidence is very material and relevant for complete and effective adjudication of the matter in controversy. Further argued that as application for eviction has been filed by the petitioner, delay would be of adverse consequence for the petitioner-landlord and not for the respondent-tenant. It is argued that the respondent can well be compensated with costs for delay, if any, attributable to the petitioner but the same should not be construed to deny right of the petitioner to adduce material evidence that has strong bearing on the issue in controversy.