SANJEEV SINGH Vs. BRIJ MOHAN ANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Sanjeev Singh, hereinafter described as the "the petitioner", directed against the order passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, dated 21. 8. 1997. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial court dismissed the application seeking permission to lead evidence by producing the proceedings of the Local Commissioner and the report of the Local Commissioner.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed a petition for eviction for ejectment of the respondent on the ground that the property in question had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The petitioner had filed another application for the same building against another tenant on the same ground. Therein an order of eviction was passed against a third, person. When that matter came up before this Court, a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the spot and report whether the entire building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Local Commissioner had visited the spot and reported that the entire building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. On the basis of the said report; the revision petition filed in other eviction petition was dismissed. Prompted by that, the petitioner filed an application to produce judgment of this Court in revision petition dated 3. 2. 1997, proceedings of the Local Commissioner and his report. The said application was contested. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the respondent was not a party to the proceedings. He was not served with a notice by the Local Commissioner and, therefore, the report of the Local Commissioner is not relevant. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner highlighted the fact that in the eviction petition filed against another tenant in the same building, Local Commissioner had been appointed and it was reported that entire building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and, therefore, the learned trial court should have permitted the report of the Local Commissioner and the proceedings to be produced. In the present case, same was not permitted by the trial Court. Only a copy of the judgment of this Court was permitted to be tendered in evidence. In the facts of the case, the discretion so exercised cannot be termed to be arbitrary or improper. Order 26 Rule 10 (2) of the- Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: