C.R. No.1987 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1987 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:30.04.2009 Amrik Singh .........Petitioner Versus Chet Singh .......Respondent Present: Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Kataria, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The revision petitioner is the tenant who challenges the order of the Rent Controller permitting the landlord to give evidence in rebuttal by permitting him to cite his witness, a building expert, to state that another property that has fallen vacant subsequent to the filing of the petition was proposed to be annexed with the property in dispute and how the landlord's personal need for the property in dispute was still fulfilled in spite of the subsequent event. 2. The petition had been filed among other grounds for eviction for personal requirement of the landlord and it appears that the tenant let in evidence with reference to the fact that the landlord had obtained possession of another property, which was adjacent to the disputed premises from yet another tenant. The attempt was evidently by the tenant to show that the personal necessity as pleaded C.R. No.1987 of 2008 (O&M) -2- by the landlord did not any longer subsist. After this evidence was let in, the landlord sought for permission to let in rebuttal evidence. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, as a matter of procedure, rebuttal evidence would be available for the landlord- petitioner only in respect of matter in issue, in respect of which the onus of proof was on the respondent-tenant. The burden of proof of establishing the personal necessity was on the landlord and therefore, after his evidence was concluded and the tenant had given his evidence, there was no scope for rebuttal on the issue relating to the bona fide need of the landlord. The evidence that is proposed to be let is on an aspect where there are no pleadings on either side, it would be impermissible for a party to adduce evidence without pleadings to support the same. The permission, which the landlord was seeking would have to be refused only on the ground that there is no factual basis for letting in the evidence, which he was seeking for. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, points out that the tenant has already given his evidence with reference to a subsequent event of the landlord coming by possession of another building and that would require to be explained if the evidence was to be only with reference to how that need still subsists. In my view, it shall be possible only if there are sufficient pleadings for the same. This is not to suggest that the landlord shall amend the pleadings but if subsequent events are broughtforth, it is only expected that such events are brought through appropriate pleadings either by way of amended pleadings or additional pleadings. The permission granted to the landlord to offer rebuttal evidence on an aspect for which there C.R. No.1987 of 2008 (O&M) -3- was no pleading cannot, therefore, be sustained. 5. The order of the Court below, under the circumstances, is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 30, 2009 Pankaj*