Civil Revision No. 6904 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6904 of 2008 Date of decision : 20.1.2010 Harbans Lal ....Petitioner Versus Ashwani Kumar ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner herein, who had filed a plea before the Rent Controller to obtain ejectment of the respondent on an averment that the tenanted premises were in dilapidated condition, filed a plea for appointment of a Local Commissioner at the trial. The averment, in support thereof, was that the report by the Local Commissioner would enable the learned Rent Controller to find out the correctness or otherwise of the averment that there was a big hole in the roof of the shop in dispute and that its walls had developed cracks and the beams had been eaten away by aunts. The learned Rent Controller negatived the plea by noticing that the presentation had been made after inordinate delay and further that a local commissioner could not be appointed to collect evidence on behalf of the applicant/party. In obtaining that view, learned Rent Controller drew sustenance from Ram Kishan Taparia Vs. Shyamlal and others 2000 (2) Civil Court Cases 1999 (Rajasthan). The petitioner is in revision against it. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that delay could not form the basis of rejection of request of the indicated category. It being apparent from the record that the matter was hanging fire since the year 2002. I do not find that view obtained by the learned Rent Controller suffers from the vice of any irregularity. The petitioner Civil Revision No. 6904 of 2008 -2- **** herein was very much in the know of the facts which he was required to prove in support of the plea for ejectment. He opted to conclude his affirmative evidence and the respondent also concluded his evidence and the matter came to rebuttal evidence stage. The plea filed at that belated stage did really not deserve acceptance. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. Disposed of accordingly. January 20, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE