BALBIR SINGH SADANA Vs. EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 27.02.2009 and 21.04.2009, passed by the learned Rent Controller (I), Shimla, H.P. in Case No. 64-2 of 2003. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this revision petition are that the respondent-landlord has sought the eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the grounds; firstly, that the premises, in question, are bonafide required for the purpose of carrying out repairs and for the purpose of rebuilding/reconstruction and making substantial additions and alterations, which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated; and secondly on the ground that the premises in question are bonafide required by the respondent for use by its employees after affecting the necessary repairs/additions and alterations and after rebuilding/reconstructing the same.

(2.) Petition was resisted by the petitioner-tenant. According to the petitioner-tenant, the building in question under his occupation was in perfectly good condition and did not require any rebuilding or any addition or alteration and the respondent-landlord has got sufficient accommodation for their employees.

(3.) Petitioner sought the services of an expert Engineer Vivek Karol, B.E. (Civil) for inspection of the building and premises in question and his opinion on the condition of the building. The expert visited the building on 27.12.2007 and prepared his report on 07.01.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the permission of the learned Rent Controller to produce and prove the said report and accompanying documents. The application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 09.06.2008. The report was permitted to be taken on record with liberty to prove the same in accordance with law. Thereafter, the next date of recording the evidence was fixed for 07.08.2008 and thereafter for 25.09.2008 on self responsibility. The fact of the matter is that as per the pleadings, Shri Vivek Karol left Shimla permanently and, thus, he could not be examined. In these circumstances, petitioner moved an application under Order 16 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for issuance of summons for procuring the attendance of expert witness or in the alternative to permit the petitioner to engage another expert for inspection of the premises and to give evidence of the said expert in the case. The application was resisted by the landlord. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application on 27.02.2009. He granted the last opportunity to produce the evidence on self responsibility on 21.04.2009. On 21.04.2009, the evidence of petitioner was closed and the matter was fixed for arguments on 08.05.2009. It is in these circumstances the petitioner-tenant has moved the present revision petition assailing the orders dated 27.02.2009 and 21.04.2009.