IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil. Revision No.: 139 of 2008. Decided on: 24.07.2008. Jawahar Lal. … … Petitioner. Versus Kusum Lata. … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This revision petition has been field under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act against the order dated 16.7.2008 passed in rent petition No.6 of 2007 by the learned Rent Controller, Kullu, H.P. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlady for convenience sake) filed a rent petition under Section 14(1)(14(3)(iii) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act against the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant for convenience sake) on the ground of arrears of rent. The landlady had led her evidence in support of her case. The tenant had already availed two opportunities to lead his evidence. The 3rd opportunity was granted to the tenant to lead evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs.250/-. When the case came Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - up for orders on 16.7.2008, the learned Rent Controlled has passed the following order:- “Today the case was fixed for respondent’s evidence and it was the last opportunity subject to payment of costs of Rs.250-/. The learned vice counsel for the respondent again prayed for adjournment, which was strongly objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Today, neither the respondent, nor his witness is present. The respondent has already availed two opportunities. This fact goes to suggest that the respondent is not interested to lead any evidence, as he himself is not present today. Hence, further opportunity is not justified in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, I find substance in the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As a result, the evidence of the respondent is closed by the order of the Court. For final arguments, put up on 21.7.2008.” It is evident from the reading of the order dated 16th July, 2008 that the tenant had been granted the last opportunity subject to payment of costs of Rs.250/-. The tenant has not led any evidence on 16th July, 2008 and had prayed for adjournment. Mr. G.R. Palsra had strenuously argued that the learned trial Court should have granted atleast one more opportunity to his client to lead the evidence. He then contended that his client could not lead evidence on 16.7.2008 due to death of his relative and he has to go out of station. I have gone through the order dated 16th July, 2008. The order dated 16.7.2008 cannot be faulted with. The tenant had already been granted two opportunities to lead evidence. He was bound to produce his evidence on 16th July, 2008. Mr. G.R. Palsra was not in a position to substantiate the date on which the relative of his client has died. The learned trial Court has come to just conclusion that the tenant was not - 3 - interested to lead his evidence. The trial Court cannot grant repeated opportunities to the parties to lead evidence to prolong the proceedings. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the order dated 16th July, 2008. Consequently, there is no merit in this revision and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. July 24, 2008. (sck)