Civil Revision No.4752 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No.4752 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.8.2010 Babu Lal …Petitioner Versus Satya Devi Sharma …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Ms. Kamalpreet, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant, who has assailed the order dated 21.7.2010, passed by the Rent Controller, Panchkula, whereby the application, filed by the tenant to lead additional evidence, was dismissed. In the present case, the landlord has sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the demised premises are required for the son of the petitioner. It was pleaded in the application for additional evidence that lateron it came to knowledge of the tenant that the son for whose settlement, ejectment of the tenant has been sought, is employed with M/s Ankur Drugs Pharma Limited, Himachal Unit No.II, Makhnu Majra, Post Office Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan (Himachal Civil Revision No.4752 of 2010 2 Pradesh). Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate, appearing for the respondent/landlady has submitted that the tenant had availed six opportunities to adduce evidence and at this belated stage, he cannot be permitted to prove this fact. Learned counsel further submitted that son of the respondent/landlady cannot remain unemployed forever, therefore, till eviction of the petitioner/tenant, he has taken a temporary/casual employment. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that one opportunity can be granted to the tenant to prove the fact regarding the employment of son of the respondent/landlady by leading additional evidence, subject to payment of cost as the petitioner/tenant has caused delay in culmination of the eviction proceedings. Accordingly, the present revision petition is accepted. The application for leading additional evidence, filed by the petitioner/tenant, is allowed. The Rent Controller, Panchkula, shall grant one opportunity to the petitioner/tenant to examine the witness to prove the employment of the son of the respondent/landlady, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost. The Rent Controller shall make every endeavour to conclude the eviction petition, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 13, 2010 “DK”