C. R. No. 2401 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2401 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 08, 2010 Ramesh Chander .... Petitioner Vs. Tarsem Chand .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition under Section 15 (5) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short – the Rent Act), assailing order dated 03.03.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, thereby closing evidence of the petitioner-landlord in ejectment petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Rent Act. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. As per zimni orders of the Rent Controller reproduced in the revision petition, at least 12 effective opportunities were granted to the petitioner for leading his evidence. Consequently, the learned Rent Controller was left with no option, but to close the evidence of the petitioner by court order. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that only two more C. R. No. 2401 of 2010 2 opportunities may be granted to the petitioner to lead his remaining evidence. However, I find no justification for the same. According to proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC), only three adjournments have to be granted to a party to lead its evidence. Said proviso may nor may not be directly applicable to proceedings under the Rent Act, but principles thereof certainly apply to the proceedings under the Rent Act. In fact, the aforesaid provision is a salutary provision introduced in CPC by amendment to curtail delay in disposal of the suits. On the same analogy, petitions filed under the Rent Act also have to be disposed of expeditiously. Moreover, the position would have been different, if the evidence of the petitioner had been closed by Rent Controller after granting him only three opportunities. In the instant case, as already noticed, the petitioner was granted at least 12 effective opportunities for his evidence. Consequently, no justification is made out for granting any more opportunity to the petitioner for his evidence. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by learned Rent Controller so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 15 (5) of the Rent Act. On the other hand, the impugned order is fully justified. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE