HARBANS SINGH Vs. GURDAS MAL MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARBANS Singh, tenant has filed the present revision petition to challenge an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller , Chandigarh, and maintained by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh. He has been ordered to be evicted from a portion of house No, 70, Sector 20 -A, Chandigarh, comprising of two rooms apart from a kitchen, together with necessary appurtenances.

(2.) GURDAS Mal landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant Petitioner on April 3, 1976 on two grounds, namely, that the tenant was in arrears of rent and that the premises were required by Him for his own use and occupation. Elaborating the second ground, it was averred (hat only one room in the said premises was in his occupation and that was not sufficient for his family which was intended to be shifted to Chandigarh from Patiala. The petition was contested by the tenant Petitioner while setting at rest the ground of non payment of rent by timely payment thereof. On the second ground, it was contended that the personal requirement of the landlord was not such so as to warrant eviction and in any case, the requirement was not bona fide. Two issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties, but the contention one which survives till the disposal of this petition is whether the Petitioner requires the premises in question for his personal use and occupation . There is concurrent finding of the courts below in favour of the landlord and this has been sought to be upset by the tenant by means of this petition.

(3.) DURING the course of the trial of the case, the defence of the tenant had to bo closed by the Rent Controller vide his detailed interim order dated September 22, 1978. Though it purports to be an order passed for closure of evidence under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, yet it is well settled that this rule of the Cods of Code of Civil Procedure Is not applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Controller under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The preceding order dated June 3(sic), 1978, had put responsibility on the tenant to produce his entire evidence on September 22,1978, and that was the last opportunity. The tenant was forewarned that no further adjournment would be granted in any ease. Despite the clear terms of the order to produce the entire evidence to defend his case, the tenant -Petitioner sent a diagnose/prescription slip of Dr. D. D. Sharma, In - charge Civil Dispensary, Mani Majra, showing that he was suffering from D. M. Diarrohoea and that he had been advised rest for the two days, i.e. 22nd September, 1976 (the date of heating) and 23rd September 1978 (a day thereafter). This diagnose/prescription slip was not relied upon by the Rent Controller and he chase to close the evidence as aforesaid.