Civil Revision No. 2872 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2872 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.05.2010 Bhajan Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Avtar Singh Kolar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Gulzar Mohd., Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate, for the caveator/respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.4.2010, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide which the application moved by the petitioners to allow Ravi Kumar, Oversear/Building Expert, to take measurements of the property in possession of the respondent/Narinder Kaur, has been dismissed. The learned trial Court rejected the application in view of the fact that the landlord/respondent filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short 'the Act'), wherein application for leave to defend has been moved by the petitioners herein. The learned Rent Controller observed that it was pleaded by the landlord, that the property was rented out to the petitioners by Jeewan Singh father of the landlord, and copy of the rent note has also been placed on record. Therefore, there was no dispute qua the identity of the Civil Revision No. 2872 of 2010 (O&M) -2- shop, in possession of the petitioners as tenants. The learned Rent Controller held that there was no necessity for building expert to visit the spot and take measurement of the property, in possession of the respondent, as the matter in controversy is regarding the shop under the tenancy of the petitioners as tenants. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends, that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller cannot be sustained in law, inasmuch as the petitioners in support of their application for leave to defend, were wanting to place on record the measurement of the shop in their possession and the one in possession of the respondent/landlord, so as to controvert the plea of personal necessity. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Rent Controller, therefore, committed an error in dismissing the application, which was very material for adjudication of the application for leave to defend. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. This civil revision is nothing but mis-use of process of the Court. It has been pointed out by the respondent/landlord, that the petition under Section 13-B of the Act was kept pending by the Court since 2007, it was only on the directions by this Court, that the matter was taken up. Thereafter one or other attempt is made by the petitioners, to delay the disposal of the case. This application seems to be one classic example of attempt to delay the proceedings. It is not understood as to how the measurement of the property, can lead to a conclusion that the need is not bona fide. It is the averments which are required to be made, along with documentary proof Civil Revision No. 2872 of 2010 (O&M) -3- of ownership of the landlord to show availability of the other property with him/her to non-suit him/her on the ground of personal necessity. The measurement of the property can in nowhere advance the case of the petitioners. In any case, it is not permissible in law to the tenants to seek such directions from the Court to create evidence in their favour. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the face of it is mis-conceived, that the measurement of the property, can lead to the conclusion that the requirement of the respondent/landlord is not bona fide. By moving such application the petitioners are trying to defeat the very object of Section 13-B of the Act, which stipulates the quick disposal of the petition in a summary manner. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 03, 2010 R.S.