SURINDRA MOHAN Vs. DHARAM CHAND ABROL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application against an order passed by the Rent Controller dated 28-2-70 rejecting the application of the petitioner for giving him an opportunity to rebut the additional evidence produced by the non-applicant, landlord.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed an application before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent of the premises let out to him by the non-applicant on the ground that the rent agreed to between the parties was excessive and therefore a fair rent under Section 8 of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) should be fixed by the Controller. The Controller took evidence of both parties and wanted to adjourn the case for arguments when the petitioner filed an application before him that as 'the non-applicant landlord had introduced certain new matters in evidence which were not touched in the objections, he should be given a right to rebut that evidence. The learned Controller was of the view that as both parties had led evidence there was no reason to give any further opportunity to the petitioner. He accordingly rejected the application of the petitioner and fixed the case for arguments Against this inter-locutory order of the Rent Controller, a revision was preferred in this court which was heard by Bhat J. who has referred the case to the Full Bench.

(3.) BEFORE we examine the contentions raised before us, it may be necessary to mention the scheme of the Act. The present dispute arises from in interlocutory order passed by the Controller under Section 8 of the Act. The relevant portions of Section 8(1) run as follows :- In any of the following cases the Controller shall, on application by any landlord or tenant, fix the fair rent as set forth hereunder :-