IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.695 of 2009 Date of decision: July 7, 2009. Darshan Kumar ...Petitioner(s) v. agan Nath and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Hemant Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Lamba, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner-landlord is aggrieved at the order dated 23.1.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Sunam, whereby his application for leading additional evidence has been declined. It appears that the eviction petition was filed in the year 2004. After conclusion of the evidence, the petitioner moved the present application to lead additional evidence on the basis of a subsequent event, namely, the sale of a hotel which was owned by the petitioner and is stated to have been sold after he had closed his evidence. The learned Rent Controller has dismissed the application after observing that in the eviction petition, the petitioner nowhere disclosed that he was owning a hotel, rather it is averred in the eviction petition that he has no other premises where he could independently settle his business. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that the impugned order, to the extent it declines the petitioner's prayer to produce the additional evidence, is liable to be set aside. Concededly, the additional evidence is based upon subsequent events and the petitioner cannot be accused of any negligence for not producing the same while leading his evidence in affirmative. However, the question, as to whether or not an adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner for concealing the material facts, needs to be kept open to be dealt with at the time of final disposal of the eviction petition. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and while permitting the petitioner to lead additional evidence based upon the subsequent events, it is directed that the question as to whether or not an adverse inference can be drawn against him for non-disclosure of the factum of alleged ownership of the hotel, is kept open and shall be dealt with by the Rent Controller at the time of final disposal of the eviction petition. Dasti. July 07, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge