BALRAJ SHARMA Vs. JAGIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller refusing to recall landlady's witness, namely, Narinder Kumar and G.S. Bhopa Rai for further cross-examination by the tenant/petitioner.

(2.) The respondent landlady (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) filed an application for eviction against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant). The principal ground taken in eviction application was that the tenant had sublet the premises to R.S. Sham who was impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the eviction application. Thus the precise issue in the case was whether the tenant had sublet the premises without written consent of the landlady to R.S. Sham.

(3.) In support of her case, the landlady examined two witnesses referred supra. The tenant wanted to confront these two witnesses with the admission forms filled in by them, when they got their children admitted in the school run by respondent No. 2's wife in House No 246 Sector 21-C, Chandigarh. The landlady claims that music classes are being run in the demised premises. The tenant wanted to prove that the music classes are being run in House No. 2060, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh and not in he demised premises. If the children of witnesses were admitted in the school run by respondent No. 2's wife in separate buildings that will be material evidence in the case. There is no doubt that the tenant was negligent. The explanation submitted by the counsel for the petitioner who is her counsel before the Rent Controller has a ring of truth. The counsel stated at the bar that be was engaged on the day when the case was fixed for evidence and the documents with which he ought to have confronted the witnesses were not in his possession and subsequently when he came to know about this evidence, he moved the application. The explanation deserves to be accepted.