IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3949 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: June 23, 2010 Sukhmander Singh. …Petitioner Versus Subash Rani and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. In a chord of concurrence, both the learned Forums, (the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority), directed eviction of the petitioner – tenant from the tenanted premises. The concurrent finding in the context is that the petitioner herein is in arrears of rent etc. Confronted with the predicament of having to explain how the petitioner – tenant could hope to succeed in revision in view of the fact that his evidence was closed by the learned Rent Controller and there is no evidence whatsoever which could be either supportive of the pleadings-related plea of the tenant or to be able to rebut the averments and substantive evidence adduced by the respondents – landlords, C.R. No. 3949 of 2010 the learned counsel states that he is not in a position to either challenge the factual accuracy of the observations made by both the learned Forums or to invite the attention of this Court to any material on the basis of which an endeavour could be made to persuade this Court to invalidate the impugned order of eviction. I have been through the judgments rendered by both the learned Forums. It is apparent therefrom that the petitioner – tenant and one Dalwinder Singh initially entered the witness box and were examined in-chief. However, they did not enter the witness box again for facing cross- examination. Their partly recorded statements could not, thus, be taken to be substantive in character. There is also no other evidence in support of the plea raised by the petitioner – tenant. The following are the observations made by the learned Appellate Authority in the context:- “From their statements, it is fully proved that rent deed Ex.P2 was scribed by the tenant, in favour of the landlords. To rebut the evidence led by respondents, the appellant examined himself as RW1 and also produced Dalwinder Singh RW2. But both of them never stepped into the witness box for cross examination, for the reasons best known to them. As such their statements are inadmissible in evidence. Perusal of the lower court file reveals that issues in the case were framed on 10.9.2007 and the 2 C.R. No. 3949 of 2010 landlords concluded their evidence on 7.8.2008. Thereafter the tenant / appellant was granted 15 opportunities including last opportunities and subject to payment of costs, spreading over period of more than 8 months, but he failed to appear for cross examination or produce any other witness, so finding no justification, his evidence was closed vide order dated 24.4.2009. He filed Civil Revision No. 2893 of 2009 against the said order, which was disposed of on 19.5.2009, with the observation that the order passed by learned Rent Controller was justified, but in the interest of justice the same was set aside, subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs and appellant was granted one more opportunity to conclude his evidence. Copy of said order was produced in Court by the appellant on 21.5.2009. Learned Rent Controller again adjourned the case to 10.6.2009 for evidence of the appellant, but he again failed to produce any evidence, so his evidence was closed by order. Meaning thereby, the appellant could not lead any evidence on record, which could be read in his favour. So plea of appellant that he had taken the demised premises on rent orally @ Rs.500/- per month cannot be believed, under any circumstance, because cogent and convincing evidence led on file reveals that rent deed Ex.P2 was executed and both parties were bound by this document. Even there is 3 C.R. No. 3949 of 2010 no merit in the plea of the appellant, that he was not given sufficient opportunities to lead evidence.” In the light of the facts aforementioned, I have no hesitation in holding that the petition is devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, requests that little extra time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the tenanted premises as he is not financially sound and would require time to be able to locate alternative premises from where he could earn for the economic sustenance of the family. It is ordered accordingly that the petitioner shall have six months' time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. Disposed of accordingly. June 23, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 4