C.R.No.4227 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.4227 of 2011 Date of decision: 21.7.2011 Deepak Jain ...Petitioner vs Abhishek Gupta ....Respondent CORAM: MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. Petitioner who is alleged to be a sub-tenant in the demised premises has approached this Court challenging the order dated 6.6.2011 passed by Rent Controller Rewari, whereby evidence of the respondents has been closed by order of the Court. Briefly stated, respondent No.1 filed an eviction petition under section 13 of the Haryana (Urban Control of Rent and Eviction)Act, 1973, inter alia, on the ground of personal necessity, non payment of rent, the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that respondent No.2 Mohar Singh has sub-let the premises in question to the petitioner. The eviction petition was contested by the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 by filing written statement and refuting the averments made in the eviction application. The issues were framed on 4.11.2008. The aforesaid order reads as:- “Present: Shri R.K.Saini,Counsel for the petitioner. C.R.No.4227 of 2011 2 Ah.D.K.Sharma, Counsel for respondents. Sh.D.N.Gupta, Counsel for Applicant Anill and others. -- On the pleadings of the parties the following issues are hereby framed: 1. Whether the respondent is required to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground mentioned in the petition ? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? 3. Relief. No other issue is pressed or claimed by the parties. Onus not objected to. Case to come up on 27.11.2009 for evidence of the plaintiff at own responsibility”. Thereafter, evidence of respondent No.1 landlord was closed vide order dated 3.3.2011, and the case was adjourned to 23.3.2011 for evidence of the respondent. However, no witness of the petitioner and respondent No.2 was present on that date and the case was adjourned to 8.4.2011 and again on the request of the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 the case was adjourned to 27.4.2011. On that day also no evidence of the petitioner and respondent No.2 was present. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 28.4.2011 for evidence of the petitioner and respondent No.2 at their own responsibility. However, on 28.4.2011 fresh vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the petitioner and request was made for adjournment to bring evidence. The case was adjourned to 6.6.2011 for entire evidence of the petitioner and respondent No.2 at their own responsibility. It was also mentioned that the last opportunity is granted. C.R.No.4227 of 2011 3 The various zimni orders reads as follows:- “Present: Sh.R.K.Saini,counsel for petitioner. Sh.RamPhal Yadav, counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. Sh.D.N.Gupta, counsel for applicants Anil and others. No RW is present today. Request is made. Now case is adjourned to 08.04.2011 for evidence of respondents at their own responsibility. Dated: 23.03..2011 Sd/- A.C.J.M.Rewari”. “Present: Sh.R.K.Saini,counsel for petitioner. Sh.Ramphal Yadav, counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. Sh.D.N.Gupta, counsel for applicants Anil and others. -- No RW is present today. Request is made. Now case is adjourned to 27.04.2011 for evidence of respondents at their own responsibility. Dated: 08.04.2011 Sd/-C.J.(SD)Rewari”. “Present: Sh.R.K.Saini,counsel for petitioner. Sh.Ramphal Yadav, counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. Sh.A.K.Tewari proxy counsel for applicants Anil and others. -- On the joint request of counsel for the parties the case is adjourned to 28.4.2011 for evidence of respondents at own responsibility. Sd/- C.J.(SD) Rewari. 27.4.2011”. C.R.No.4227 of 2011 4 “Present: Sh.R.K.Saini,counsel for petitioner. Sh.RamPhal Yadav, counsel for respondent No.1. Sh.Parvinder Yadav,counsel for respondent No.2 Sh.D.N.Gupta, counsel for applicants Anil and others. -- Fresh vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2 filed. Request is made for evidence. Now case is adjourned to 06.06.2011 for entire evidence of the respondents at their own responsibility, Last opportunity is granted. Dated:28.04.2011 Sd/-C.J.(SD) Rewari”. On 6.6.2011, no evidence of the petitioner and respondent No.2 was present and accordingly the Rent Controller,Rewari, vide impugned order dated 6.6.2011 held that no further adjournment/opportunity wa justified and the petitioner and respondent No.2 want to prolong the case for one or the other reason and closed the evidence by order of the Court. The aforesaid impugned order dated 6.6.2011 is under challenge before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that one more opportunity for the evidence of the petitioner ought to have been granted as the petitioner was present for his evidence and his counsel was not present and therefore, he should not be made to suffer for fault of the counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has also tried to justify the adjournments dated 8.4.2011 and 28.4.2011 on the ground that he was not well. Thus, it was submitted that in the interest of justice the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be granted an opportunity to lead his evidence. C.R.No.4227 of 2011 5 The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. From the perusal of the impugned order it is crystal clear that no evidence on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 was present despite the last opportunity granted. Not only this while closing the evidence by order, it has been clearly mentioned by the Rent Controller that the case being an old one has to be decided at the earliest as per the directions given by this Court. This fact finds further support from the order dated 3.3.2011 whereby even evidence of the landlord respondent No.1 was closed by order of the Court. The averment made before this Court that for the fault of the counsel petitioner should not be made to suffer is wholly without any basis as the order does not mention that the evidence of the petitioner was present on the date fixed. Thus, the petitioner has tried to raise a false plea before this Court. The medical certificate attached as Anexure P3 with this petition, according to which the petitioner was advised medical rest from 2.4.2011 to 22.4.2011, is of no consequence as the case was adjourned on 27.4.2011 at the request made on behalf of the petitioner. It may also be relevant to notice that petitioner is alleged to be sub-tenant and respondent No.2 is alleged to be tenant in the eviction petition and respondent No.2 has not come to this Court to challenge the impugned order. Thus, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge July 21, 2011 rk