P.R. RANA Vs. AJAY KAUSHISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents, (hereinafter referred to as the landlords), filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner tenant from the demised premises on the ground that he had failed to occupy the same since April, 2000 without any reasonable cause. The petition was filed on 13.3.2002. The tenant was served and put in appearance on 23.7.2002. After the pleadings were completed, issues were framed on 5.12.2002. The petition was then fixed for the evidence of the landlords. On 29.10. 2003 two witnesses were present, but they were discharged on the request of the Counsel for the landlords that he wanted to examine the witnesses alongwith the other witnesses. Thereafter the case effectively came up for the landlords' evidence on 17.5.2004. On the said date four witnesses were present. The witnesses, who were present, were discharged by the learned Rent Controller on the request of Counsel for the tenant who had moved an application under Order 13 Rule 10 for summoning of some record. In fact this application was not opposed by the Counsel for the landlords and was allowed and the fresh evidence was summoned for 30.6.2004.

(2.) ON 30.6.2004 again four witnesses were present, but they were not examined on the ground that the record from the Court of Rent Controller (II) with regard to some previous litigation between the parties (including their predecessor in interests) had not been received. The case was then adjourned for the statement of the official from the general record room on 28.7.2004. On the said date through the official was present, but he was discharged since an application had been moved on behalf of the tenant for adjournment which was not opposed and the case was adjourned to 26.8.2004. On the said date the official from the record room was not present since no steps had been taken by the tenant for summoning him. The matter was adjourned to 14.9.2004 on which date the witness from the record room appeared and filed a certificate to the effect that record of the case which had been summoned had been destroyed. His statement to this effect was also recorded. The Counsel for the tenant then sought time to seek permission to lead secondary evidence. On the next date i.e. 28.9.2004 two applications were filed, one under Section 65 CPC for leading secondary evidence and second application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC praying for summoning of further record. Replies to the said applications were filed by the landlord after seeking one adjournment and the replies were filed on 2.12.2004. Thereafter the matter was adjourned twice on the request of learned Counsel for the tenant and finally, arguments on these applications were heard on 7th January, 2005.

(3.) THIS case clearly brings out the casual manner with which the Rent Controller handled the case. The learned Rent Controller who was hearing the case, thrice adjourned the matter even when the witnesses were present without any valid reason, only on the request of the parties. The learned Rent Controller did not at all consider the convenience of the witnesses. Witnesses appear in Court(s) because they are summoned by the Court(s). The official witnesses were only to prove some record. There is no reason why their evidence should not have been recorded. Merely on the request of the Counsel dealing with the case the witnesses were discharged without realizing that this may cause great hardship to the witnesses. Witnesses need to be treated with respect by the Courts. Their difficulties should also be taken into consideration. It should be the endeavour of all Courts to ensure that the witnesses are not put to any inconvenience and that they are not summoned to Court time and again for no fault of theirs.