Civil Revision No. 752 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 752 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.12.2008 Chander Dev … Petitioner Versus Raj Kumar Miglani and Another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Harish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Punia, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Chander Dev has preferred the present revision petition praying that order dated 1.12.2007 (Annexure P3) passed by learned Rent Controller, Kaithal, whereby application of petitioner to examine Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert for rebuttal/additional evidence has been declined be set aside. Petitioner Chander Dev is a landlord of a shop bearing property No. MCK-330/06 measuring 17’ X 11’. According to landlord, this shop was rented out to respondent at a monthly rent of Rs.500/- per month and a rent note was executed by the tenant in favour of the petitioner. Due to default on the part of the tenant eviction petition was Civil Revision No. 752 of 2008 2 preferred under Section 13 of the Haryana (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). A written statement was filed by the tenant. Relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. However, it was denied that the rent has been paid. The petitioner appeared as a witness and reiterated in his testimony that rent w.e.f. 9.10.2003 to 9.9.2006 has not been paid at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. After closure of the evidence, tenant appeared and while appearing as a witness, he denied the signatures on rent note Ex.A2. Denial on the part of the tenant led landlord to file an application for permission to examine the Handwriting & Finger Print Expert. It was stated in the application that the landlord has specifically pleaded that the present rate of rent of tenanted premises is Rs.500/- per month. The tenant stated that the rent was taken at a monthly rate of Rs.300/- per month. Therefore, an application was filed and since on the rent receipt (Annexure A2) signatures have been denied the same are required to be compared with the admitted signatures of the tenant. Reply to the application (Annexure P2) was filed. It was stated therein that the tenant had never signed any receipt in respect of rent and the Court had rightly assessed the rent between the parties as Rs.300/- per month. Learned Rent Controller in the impugned order held that tenant has specifically stated in reply on merits that he had taken the shop at a monthly rent of Rs.300/- per month. Petitioner, while appearing as PW.1, specifically deposed that the rate of rent was Rs.500/- per month and produced copy of rent receipt in token of enhanced rent as Ex.A2. Learned Rent Controller held in para 6 of the Civil Revision No. 752 of 2008 3 impugned order as under:- “6. After hearing the rival contentions of ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the record very carefully. The applicant/petitioner has filed the petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act, 1973 for eviction of the respondents on the ground that the respondents are in arrears of rent and the rate of rent was pleaded by the petitioner @ Rs.500/- per month, so meaning thereby when a particular and specific stand was taken by the petitioner/applicant that the rate of rent was Rs.500/-, he has supposed to lead the evidence in affirmative. The entire burden was upon the petitioner/applicant/landlord to prove the rate of rent of the suit premises as Rs.500/- per month. It is well settled that the evidence can be adduced by way of rebuttal when the other party has led evidence on a issue the burden of which was rested upon that party or the other party has led some evidence for which the party led evidence in rebuttal. But in the case in hand the two issues were framed, the first one was what is the rate of rent of the tenanted premises and the second was framed whether the rent tendered by the respondents is invalid, if so its effect? Thus, on both these issues the onus was upon the petitioner/applicant to lead evidence for proving the Civil Revision No. 752 of 2008 4 rate of rent and to prove that the rent was not tendered valid by the respondents and this issue had to be discharged by way of evidence in affirmative but not in rebuttal. Recently our Hon’ble High Court in Surjit Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh 2007(2) Civil Court Cases-115 (P&H) (DB) has observed that the plaintiff has no right to lead rebuttal evidence the onus of proof of which was on him. In Balbiro and Others Vs. Mejo and Others 2001(3) PLR-669 it was held that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal to the rebuttal evidence. In Sharam Singh Vs. Gurjit Singh 2002(1) PLR-143 it was observed that where the petitioner filed a suit and while leading his evidence in affirmative, he virtually led no evidence whatsoever. He even did not examine himself as his own witness and kept mum. The respondents led evidence and gave up issue No. 2, 3, and 6. Once no evidence has been led on these issues by the respondents, on opportunity can be given to the petitioner to lead any evidence in rebuttal. In Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2003(1) Civil Court Cases – 445 (P&H) it was held that rebuttal evidence by plaintiff, cannot be allowed to be led on the issues the burden of which was on the plaintiff. Thus, as a result of my discussion as well as by playing the ratio of law Civil Revision No. 752 of 2008 5 referred in the foregoing lines, I am of the view that the petitioner has no right to lead the evidence of examination of Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert by way of rebuttal”. Learned Rent Controller has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal as the onus was upon him to prove this factum of rent as a specific plea had been taken, and a specific denial was made regarding quantum of the rent to be Rs.500/- and tenant had stated that the rent was Rs.300/-. However, learned Rent Controller has not examined the prayer regarding leading the evidence by way of additional evidence in a right perspective. A Co-ordinate Bench while issuing notice of motion observed as under:- “Counsel for the petitioner states that as the tenant denied his signatures on the receipt Ex.A2, while appearing in his defence, the petitioner would necessarily have to be granted an opportunity to establish the authenticity of the tenant's signatures”. A similar issue has cropped up before this Court in Civil Revision No. 5664 of 2008 decided on 4.11.2008 in which after examining various submissions of learned counsel for the parties were examined and dealt with. It will be apposite here to reproduce the relevant portion of the said judgment:- “Shri Vinod S. Bhardwaj relied upon a judgment of this Court in Brij Lal v. Yash Pal, 1985 Civil Revision No. 752 of 2008 6 (1) RCR (Rent) 551 to state that technical rules of procedure of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to proceedings under the Rent Act and Rent Controller can device his own procedure for the just adjudication of the case. It was held therein that the Court is competent to grant an opportunity to the landlord to lead evidence after tenant had led evidence in rebuttal of the evidence led by the landlord in support of the case. Reliance has also been placed on Lal Chand and others v. Kishan Murari Goel and others, 1995(1) RCR 274 wherein it was held that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not expressly applicable to the rent proceedings and the Rent Controller to find out the truth can device appropriate procedure. It was further held therein that Rent Controller cannot be held bound by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Further reliance has been placed on Harcharan Singh v. Ashok Kumar, 2003(1) RCR (Rent) 696 in which it has been held that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure would not apply ipso facto on the Rent Controller. To controvert the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gian Inder Sharma appearing for the respondent has placed reliance on Tejinder Kaur v. Kishan Singh and others, 2008 Civil Revision No. 752 of 2008 7 (1) RCR (Civil) 485 to state that the right to lead evidence in rebuttal shall not accrue to the party in respect to an issue which is already within the knowledge of that party. He has further relied upon Khazani v. Mahabir Singh & Ors., 2007(2) HRR 483. Both these judgments relied upon by counsel for the respondent pertain to the civil suits. It has been further stated by Shri Sharma that now the petitioner cannot be permitted to fill in the lacuna in the evidence. The endeavour of the Court is to arrive at a truth. The Courts are not to punish any body for the mistake committed or the lapse. The Courts must pursue their goal to find out truth and veracity of the allegations. The Court has to dispense just adjudication to the parties, who approach it. In the present case, the controversy is involved whether House No.1705, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh is owned by the petitioner or not? In the ejectment petition, it was specifically stated that he is residing there on rent and the landlord is pressurising him to vacate the premises. In written statement, it was stated that landlord is residing in his own house. If lapse has been committed due to inadvertence on the part of the petitioner, he cannot be foreclosed for ever”. In the present case, rent note is not alleged to be proved. Fair Civil Revision No. 752 of 2008 8 play demand, that search for truth, must be endeavour of the Court. Therefore, an opportunity is granted to the landlord to lead additional evidence and is permitted to examine the Handwriting & Finger Print Expert regarding the signatures of the tenant on rent note Ex.A2. Needless to say, the tenant shall also get fair opportunity to lead his evidence to demolish the evidence of Handwriting & Finger Print Expert. In view of these observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 22, 2008 “DK”