IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4537 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.08.2009 Raj Kumar .....Petitioner versus Kewal Garg and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 28.7.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dismissing his application for additional evidence. The petitioner-tenant wants to produce the additional evidence comprising some official record of the Income Tax Department in order to show that Mr.Sumit Garg, for whose personal necessity the respondent- landlord is seeking ejectment of the petitioner-tenant, is already well established allegedly in business and is an income tax assessee. C.R. No.4537 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Pursuant to the notice of motion, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The impugned order dated 28.7.2009 as well as the additional evidence sought to be produced by the petitioner-tenant, have also been perused. It appears that the additional evidence sought to be brought on record would assist the Rent Controller in formation of definite opinion on merits of the case and it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is permitted to produce the same, moreso, when the respondent-landlord can be suitably compensated with the costs for the delay likely to be caused in final disposal of the case. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord appears to be right in contending that the petitioner-tenant is moving one after other applications to prolong the decision by adopting delaying tactics. In my considered view, though the petitioner is entitled to lead the additional evidence, nevertheless he cannot adopt one or the other prolonging tactics to delay the final decision. The revision petition is accordingly allowed; the impugned order dated 28.7.2009 is set-aside and the petitioner is permitted to lead the additional evidence. The petitioner shall be entitled to summon the official witness from the Income Tax Department through court process but shall produce the witness at his own responsibility. This opportunity is, however, granted to the petitioner- tenant subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent- landlord. It is further made clear that if the Rent Controller is satisfied that one after the other applications moved by the petitioner-tenant are guided C.R. No.4537 of 2009 (O&M) 3 by the motive to delay the proceedings, he shall be at liberty to dismiss the applications with exemplary costs. However, in the interest of justice, one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner-tenant to withdraw such applications. The Rent Controller shall make an endeavour to decide the eviction petition as early as possible and preferably before 31.10.2009. Dasti. 28-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE