BALDEV Vs. RAJWANT SINGH MANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been maintained by the petitioner/tenant (herein referred as petitioner) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the impugned order dtd. 25/3/2019, passed by learned Rent Controller, Shimla, in Case No. 118-2 of 2016, wherein evidence of the respondent-petitioner was closed.

(2.) Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent/landlord has Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes filed a petition for eviction of petitioner/tenant from the premises, under Sec. 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that premise in question is required by the respondent-landlord, as it become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and has outlived its normal life and the whole building including the premises, in question, is bonefide requires reconstruction, which cannot be carried out without its vacation by the occupants. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for the evidence of the petitioner on various dates i.e. 29/8/2018, 8/10/2018, 22/11/2018, 19/12/2018, 21/2/2019 and 25/3/2019, however, on the aforesaid dates, the petitioner could not produce his evidence and the learned Rent Controller vide order dtd. 25/3/2019, closed the evidence of the petitioner.

(3.) As per the petitioner, on 8/10/2018, learned counsel representing the petitioner prayed time, as no RWs were present. The counsel representing the petitioner kept on contacting the petitioner, but he could not be contacted. On 22/11/2018, again a prayer has been made by the representing counsel of the petitioner for an adjournment and the learned Court below adjourned the matter for 19/12/2018. On 19/12/2018, again a prayer was made and the case was fixed for 21/2/2019. Thereafter, the representing counsel for the petitioner, wrote a letter to him on 9/1/2019, which was delivered to him and he contacted his counsel through phone and told him that since, he is out of station, he could attend the office only in the second week of March, 2019. On his instructions, on 21/2/2019, the vice counsel representing the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground (supra) and leaned Court below directed that the evidence would be produced at self responsibility. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller granted one last opportunity subject to costs of Rs.3,00.00 and the matter was fixed for 25/3/2019.