Civil Revision No.424 of 2009 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.424 of 2009 (O & M) Date of decision 27.1.2009 Dr. Nand Lal .....Appellant versus Pardeep Kumar Kaushal and another .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Naresh K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. K. Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The tenant who pleaded that the petitioner was not his landlord and that one Ram Nath was his landlord and that rent deed between him and the said Ram Nath had been executed in the year 1967 and all the rent receipts have been issued only by the said Ram Nath moved an application for examining a handwriting expert but it was dismissed. The revision petition is filed against the order rejecting the request. 2. The persons who filed the petition for eviction claiming themselves to be 'landlord' were the sons of the aforesaid Ram Nath's brother Baldev Kishan. The leave to defend was granted only finding that there were a triable issues relating to the so called relationship between the landlord and the tenant between the petitioners and the respondent in the rent control petition. Although the initial burden was always on the petitioner filing the application for eviction to establish the relationship, having regard to the specific issue framed namely whether the rent note dated 25.7.1967 was true, the tenant was required to adduce proof of the genuineness of the alleged document. RW had been present who was Civil Revision No.424 of 2009 (O & M) -2- summoned to produce the official records containing the signature of Ram Nath and after his examination an expert witness was sought to be examined to prove the signature of the document contained in the official records. The permission was refused and the Court had directed the evidence on the side of the tenant to be closed. 3. The parties are the best judges of their own cause and it shall be left to them to decide on the quality of evidence that they wish to produce. The Court shall not control the parties' desire in any way except when it sees that the evidence would be totally irrelevant for the issues to be adjudicated. When there was a definite issue framed as regards the rent note it was expected that the tenant adduced every proof that he decided to bring in support of his defence. 4. Normally, I would have ordered issued notice to the respondent and proceeded to hear the same but I am dispensing with the said requirement only because the landlord himself does not join the issue on the plea made by the tenant for giving the expert evidence but it is the order of the Court that comes in the way. In my view, the case need not be retained for serving notices to the respondents and therefore I have thought it fit to dispense with the notice to the respondent and pass an order directing the Rent Controller to reopen the case and permit the tenant to adduce such evidence which he thinks fit on the genuineness of the signature found in the rent deed. The closure of the evidence shall normally be only on the expression of the party that he has no further evidence to offer. The procedure adopted by the Rent Controller does not accord with law and the impugned order is set aside. The case shall be called on 16.2.2009 when the Rent Controller shall permit the petitioner tenant to examine his witness and Civil Revision No.424 of 2009 (O & M) -3- conclude the evidence after the examination of the such witness. 5. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 6. Copy of the order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of the Reader. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE 27.01.2009 A. KAUNDAL