DHANI RAM Vs. RAMJI LAL KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceedings under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , were pending before the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar towards the end of the proceedings, it was averred on behalf of the petitioner that the landlord had not raised the necessary pleas which according to a Full Bench decision of this Court reported as Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarasti Devi, 1977 1 RCJ 332, he was under an obligation to raise. The respondent-landlord amended his petition for ejectment on September 25, 1975. The petitioner filed a written statement in which he denied the allegations which had been introduced by the respondent by way of amendment. The case was, however, fixed for arguments on October 27, 1975. The arguments were heard and the case was adjourned for the next day for orders. On that day, two additional issues were framed one regarding notice and the other on the point whether the respondent had any other house within the municipal limits of Amritsar. The burden of these issues was laid on the petitioner. The case was adjourned to October 29, 1975, for evidence of the petitioner and further proceedings. On that day, he declined to appear in the witness box and the learned Rent Controller closed his evidence. He also separately passed an order for his ejectment.

(2.) In this revision petition the propriety of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller is challenged on the ground that he after having framed two issues, on October 28, 1975, should have given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence.

(3.) The original file shows that when the case came up for hearing on October 28, 1975. the petitioner did not claim a longer adjournment. Even in the grounds of revision petition, it has nowhere been averred that a longer adjournment was sought on that date and declined by the learned Rent Controller. When the case came up for hearing on October 29, 1975, the petitioner did not step into the witness box even though he was asked by the learned Rent Controller to do so. The zimni order shows that he was adamant not to appear as his own witness. In this situation, the learned Rent Controller had no option other than to close his evidence. The order passed on merits by the learned Rent Controller does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and the same was subsequently upheld even by the learned Appellate Authority. The petition is therefore dismissed.