CR No.8237 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.8237 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:14.01.2011. Jivan Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Prem Rani Sharma and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 09.12.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana by which an application filed by the respondents for additional evidence has been allowed. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] seeking eviction of the respondents from a shop (demised premises) on the ground of non-payment of rent and the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The said petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 11.09.2007 on the ground that the demised premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Aggrieved against the ejectment order, the respondents/tenants had filed statutory appeal before the learned Appellate Authority and during the pendency of the appeal, an application for leading additional evidence was filed by the respondents which has been allowed by the impugned order. The learned Appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that the learned Rent Controller had closed evidence of the respondents in their absence, in the absence of their counsel and observed that enough opportunity is not granted by the learned Rent Controller to the respondents to adduce their CR No.8237 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ****** evidence and on that count one opportunity has been given to the respondents to lead evidence as per their application dated 28.10.2010, with one opportunity to the non-applicant/landlord to rebut the evidence so adduced by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the same relief has been sought by the respondents in appeal which has been granted by the learned Appellate Authority. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his assistance. The respondents have not only prayed for opportunity to lead evidence but also prayed for decision of the appeal on merits, meaning thereby the learned Appellate Authority is yet to take a decision on the merits of the controversy between the parties after appraisal of the evidence. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. January 14, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE