Civil Revision No. 1797 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 1797 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.9.2010 Ram Niranjan Dass …Petitioner Versus Rajesh Airy …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Ghai, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present revision petition, the challenge is to the order dated 8.1.2010, whereby the amendment of issues No.4 and 5 was carried. After the amendment, the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, has observed that the application (Annexure P2), filed by the petitioner/tenant that para Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and part of para No.2 be eschewed from the affidavit, has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 10.2.2004 to contend that Narinder Kumar Sharma, Attorney of the landlord, appeared as PW.9 and his cross-examination was not concluded when the Rent Controller had closed the evidence of the petitioner/landlord by observing that he had availed 74 adjournments to Civil Revision No. 1797 of 2010 2 conclude his evidence within the span of 16 years. Learned counsel further submits that in case the contents of affidavit are read, the same state those facts which Narinder Kumar Sharma, appearing as PW.9, was bound to state, while leading his evidence in affirmative. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that regarding all the issues, the onus was upon the petitioner/tenant, therefore, the right of rebuttal do flow to him. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, the issues were framed on 28.11.1988 and the same read as under:- “1. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPR. 2. Whether the respondent is liable to pay house tax, if so, its effect? OPR 3. Whether the respondent has comment such act which has materially impaired the value of the property/ OPR 4. Whether the respondent has changed the construction of the building? OPR 5. Whether respondent has no jurisdiction? OPR 6. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPR 7. Relief”. Civil Revision No. 1797 of 2010 3 A perusal of the issues reveals that qua all the issues, the onus was upon the petitioner/tenant. Once the tenant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, this Court, in isolation of the evidence led by the tenant, cannot determine the pleadings made in affidavit (Annexure P1). As to what evidence has been led by the tenant to repudiate the relationship of landlord and tenant, the landlord is well within his right to lead evidence, in rebuttal, as onus on all the issues was placed upon the tenant and he had not earlier challenged the onus upon him. Thus, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition to disturb discretion validly exercised by the Rent Controller. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 29, 2010 “DK”