CR No. 5947 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5947 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.9.2011 ... Manjit Kaur ................Petitioner vs. Ashok Kumar .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioner ... K.C. Puri, J. Challenge in the revision petition is to the order dated 6.9.2011, passed by the Rent Controller, vide which the landlord has been allowed to be cross examined on payment of ` 10,000/- to the respondent and ` 5,000/- in Legal Aid Account. Briefly stated, Ashok Kumar filed rent petition on the ground of personal necessity alongwith other grounds for eviction, which was contested by the defendant-tenant, now petitioner, by tooth and nail. The landlord filed an application on 25.8.2011 with the allegation that on 17.1.2011 the landlord was cross examined by Sh. R.K. Arora and thereafter, counsel for the petitioner closed the oral evidence. However, copy of that cross examination is not on the file. The said CR No. 5947 of 2011 -2- application was resisted by the tenant with the allegation that no cross examination was conducted on 17.1.2011. The petitioner himself did not appear in the Court. Learned Rent Controller, after hearing both the sides allowed the application for cross examination of the landlord. Feeling dissatisfied with the said order dated 6.9.2011, the present revision petition has been filed. Sh. Padam Jain, Advocate for the revisionist has submitted that the Rent Controller itself has given a finding that landlord has not appeared on 17.1.2011 and inspite of that the application has been allowed. He has further submitted that where the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs, in view of authority reported as K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 875. I have carefully considered the submission made by counsel for the revisionist. The Courts are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it. No doubt, the case of the landlord that he was cross examined on 17.1.2011, was not proved before the Rent Controller, but in order to meet the ends of justice, the Rent Controller has allowed the application for his cross examination. He has been burdened with costs of ` 15,000/- ( ` 10,000/- to be paid to the tenant and ` 5,000/- to be deposited with Legal Aid Account). The eviction order has been sought on various grounds and one of the ground is personal necessity. So, in these circumstances, without cross examination of the witness, the landlord would be non- CR No. 5947 of 2011 -3- suited at the threshold. So far as the authority in K.K. Velusamy 's case (Supra), is concerned, in that authority it has been held that if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs. In that ruling, itself, it has been laid down by the Apex Court that Court can allow the party to produce fresh evidence, even when the evidence is concluded and arguments have been partly heard. So, in these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 6.9.2011 passed by the Rent Controller. Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist be allowed three opportunities to rebut the evidence. That matter is left open with the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller itself has observed that tenant-revisionist shall be entitled to rebut that evidence. So, in these circumstances, no prejudice has been caused to the revisionist. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 27.9.2011 Judge chugh