PAWAN KUMAR MUNDRA Vs. SAT PAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has come up in revision against the order of Rent Controller, Chandigarh, refusing to recall the landlord for further cross-examination.

(2.) THE tenant has pleaded in his written statement that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid to the landlord as arrears of rent. The receipt was also placed on record along with the written statement. Inadvertently, when the landlord came in the witness box, the receipt was not put to him and thereafter an application was moved for recalling the landlord so that the receipt could be put to him. Normally this Court will not interfere with discretionary orders passed by the Subordinate Courts. However, in the instant case, there appear to be good grounds for recalling the landlord for further cross-examination. The receipt is mentioned in the written statement. The landlord filed replication to the written statement and controverted the allegations made by the tenant that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid to him as arrears of rent. It was necessary for the tenant to confront the landlord with this receipt. The parties were fully alive to the controversy. The omission appears to be bonafide as stated by the tenant. The learned counsel for the tenant states at the bar that he will confront the landlord only with this receipt and he will not put any other question to him in cross examination. Thus, in view of the peculiar circumstances, the revision petition is accepted and the order under challenge is set said. The Rent Controller is directed to recall the landlord and permit the tenant to put this document regarding receipt of arrears of rent to him. However, the tenant is burdened with costs of Rs. 500/- which is conditional and landlord will only be examined if costs are paid before the evidence is recorded. I am told that the case is at the evidence stage and is fixed for May 27, 1989. On that date the Rent Controller will fix another date for re-examining the landlord. Revision allowed.