BANWARI LAL Vs. IQBAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated June 9, 1978, closing evidence of the petitioner.

(2.) Evidence of the petitioner was ordered to be summoned for the first time for April 14, 1977. He deposited diet money and process fee for summoning ten witnesses. But, only six witnesses were examined for that date. The case was adjourned to July 21, 1977 and the petitioner was ordered to take out dasti summons and at his own responsibility arragne for the production of the witnesses. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to August 23, October 27, December 13, 1977. January 31, March 16, April 22 and May 15, 1978, for evidence of the petitioner and each time he was ordered to take out daste summons and arrange for the production of the witnesses. On the last date, i.e. May 15, 1978, the learned counsel gave statement and under took to produce his evidedce at his own responsibility on payment of Rs. 20 as costs. The dispute between the parties is as to the purpose for which the building in dispute was let out which is shop-cum-flat situate in Sector 9 at Chandigarh. The rent deed executed between the parties has already been produced and proved on the record. He wanted to produce witnesses to show that the building in dispute was let out for the purpose of trade only. I have my doubts if he could be permitted to lead oral evidence to contradict the terms of' the written contract. Be that as it may, the number of adjournments shows that the sole purpose of the tenant was to delay the proceedings. If he had any real grievance is not summoning his witnesses by the Court, he should have come immediately when he was required by the Court to produce evidence at his own responsibility. In any case, I have not found sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order in the revision jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner, if so advised, may raise this matter in appeal, if any filed against the ultimate order.

(3.) I, therefore, find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.