Civil Revision No.5349 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5349 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision: 05.09.2011 Sandeep ....petitioner Versus Kailash Chand Tayal & ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.J.P.Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 04.08.2011 passed by Rent Controller, Mahendergarh, whereby application of the tenant for permission to adduce additional evidence with regard to filing of earlier ejectment application (which was got dismissed as withdrawn) was rejected. The relevant part of the impugned order reads thus: Heard on the application filed by respondent for permission to adduce additional evidence. The respondent wishes to place on file copy of earlier ejectment application filed by the petitioner which was got dismissed as withdrawn by petitioner by making statement on 12.09.2008. The said fact was in the knowledge of respondent before he commenced his evidence in the present case and no ground is made Civil Revision No.5349 of 2011 2 out for permitting the respondent to adduce the said additional evidence. Besides, the earlier petition was for ejectment on the sole ground of non payment of rent and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn upon payment of rent by respondent. It cannot be said that the previous instituted ejectment petition shall have any bearing on the decision in the present case. Application is totally without merits and is dismissed. This is not in dispute that the earlier petition was filed on the ground of non-payment of rent only and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn on payment of rent and the aforesaid fact was to the knowledge of the petitioner and moreover the petitioner could not show as to how the aforesaid fact was relevant for the purpose of the controversy in hand. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 05.09.2011 neenu