BALWINDER SINGH Vs. TARLOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision is directed against the order dated 19.12.1986 passed by the learned Rent Controller whereby he has dismissed an application of the landlord-petitioner to produce additional evidence.

(2.) THE petitioners filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the respondent from shop on the grounds, namely, that the shop is lying closed meaning thereby that the respondent has ceased to occupy the same for a continuous period of four months; that the respondent has converted the shop into a godown; and the building in dispute has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The petitioners held their evidence in the affirmative and closed their case. The respondent in his turn produced evidence in rebuttal. It was at the stage when the evidence had been closed that the petitioners sought to produce two more witnesses, namely, Mohinder Singh Brar, Agricultural Inspector, Bagha Purana, and Avtar Singh, Seed Development Officer, along with the record of Devinder Oil Store, Langeena, Mudkei Road, Bagha Purana. This was to meet with the evidence produced by the respondent to the effect that he has fertilizer licence in the name and style of Devinder Oil Store. The learned Rent Controller has held that the onus of proving of the three grounds for ejectment was on the petitioners. They had since closed the evidence. The respondent had also led evidence in rebuttal. The petitioners, therefore, could not be allowed to fill in the lacunae in their evidence at such a late stage.

(3.) THE parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on October 10, 1988. Petition dismissed.