Civil Revision No. 159 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 159 of 2008 Date of Decision: 6.8.2010 Tejinder Kaur …Petitioner Versus Smt. Santosh Sharma and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned orders dated 20.9.2007 (Annexure P2) and dated 22.10.2007 (Annexure P5), passed by the Rent Controller, Jagadhari. Vide order dated 20.9.2007 (Annexure P2), a prayer of the petitioner, for examining the Handwriting Expert, in rebuttal evidence, was declined, whereas vide order dated 22.10.2007 (Annexure P5), his another prayer to lead additional evidence to examine the Handwriting Expert was also declined. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “1949 Act”), in the Court of Rent Controller, for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller, on 26.2.2003, Civil Revision No. 159 of 2008 2 had drawn the following issues:- “1. What is basic rent? OPP 2. What is fair rent? OPP 3. Whether there is no relationship of tenant and landlord? OPR 4. Whether petition is bad for misjoinder of the parties? OPR 5. Whether petition is not properly signed and verified? OPR 6. Relief”. The onus was upon the respondents qua issue No.3 regarding determination of the relationship of tenant and landlord. From the perusal of order dated 20.9.2007 (AnnexureP2), it is evident that respondent No.1 Santosh Sharma had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to order dated 7.10.2006, which reads as under:- “Present: Sh.B.R. Gupta, Adv. Counsel for the petitioner. Sh. S.K. Goel, Adv. Counsel for respondent. No rebuttal evidence is present. Request for PW Ramdhan Babbar, Handwriting Expert, received on the ground that he has to appear in a case at Kurukshetra today. On request case is adjourned to 10.11.2006 for rebuttal evidence, if any Civil Revision No. 159 of 2008 3 and for arguments. Sd/-ACJSD/7.10.06”. It is submitted that on 10.11.2006, the case was adjourned to 12.10.2006. Under an erroneous belief, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the trial Court, had filed an application (Annexure P1) for seeking permission to examine the Handwriting Expert, in rebuttal evidence. The same was declined vide order dated 20.9.2007 (Annexure P2). Again an application (Annexure P3) was filed for examining the Handwriting Expert by leading additional evidence. Once the onus was upon the respondents to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant, it was incumbent that the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to examine the Handwriting Expert, in rebuttal evidence. Taking overall perspective of the case, this Court is of the view that one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to examine the Handwriting Expert, in rebuttal evidence. Thus, the present revision petition is accepted. The Rent Controller, Jagadhari, is directed to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal and examine the Handwriting Expert. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 6, 2010 “DK”