NANDLAL Vs. ABDUL HAMID & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.9.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sikar whereby the learned Magistrate has closed the petitioner's evidence.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1, the landlord, Abdul Hamid, filed an eviction application under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act before the Rent Tribunal, Sikar stating therein that he had let out the shop in dispute to the petitioner-tenant, but he is not using the same. The petitioner filed reply to the application and stated that his sons, Vinod and Manoj, are doing business in the suit shop. After completion of evidence of the respondent-landlord, evidence of the petitioner-tenant started. Since the petitioner failed to examine himself as a witness on number of occasions, by order dated 13.8.2013 the learned Tribunal granted the last opportunity to the petitioner to have himself examined as a witness. As the petitioner did not appear on 3.9.2013, the learned Tribunal has closed the petitioner's evidence. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) Mr. Anoop Dhand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, according to the order dated 13.8.2013, the learned Tribunal had granted a last opportunity to the petitioner to have his witnesses examined, failing which, the evidence of the petitioner-tenant would be deemed to be closed. The case was scheduled to be listed on 3.9.2013. Since the petitioner was not well, since he had undergone a cataract operation on 13.3.2013 and was unable to attend the court on 3.9.2013, he had sent his son, Vinod, as his power of attorney holder for the purpose of deposing before the court. He also filed an application for taking Vinod's affidavit on record and for permitting Vinod to be examined as a witness on his behalf by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the petitioner's witness was present before the court on 3.9.2013.