Civil Revision No. 5060 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5060 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.08.2010 Narain Singh @ Kaka ....Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Ms. Sushma Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for extending the period for deciding the petition, by another three months, so as to enable the petitioner to avail opportunity to lead evidence. in support of the case. The respondent-landlords filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent and bona fide personal necessity. Written statement to the petition was filed on 17.8.2007. The evidence of the respondent-landlords was not concluded till April, 2010. The respondent-landlords filed civil revision No.1197 of 2010 titled “Ashok Kumar and others Vs. Narain Singh. The revision petition was decided on 23.4.2010. This Court directed that the respondent- landlord shall conclude their evidence by 25.5.2010 i.e. the date fixed in case. This Court thereafter granted time upto 14.6.2010 to the Civil Revision No. 5060 of 2010 -2- petitioner, to conclude the entire evidence. It was further ordered, that the main case be disposed of by 31.7.2010. It is pertinent to mention here, that the defence of the respondents was not taken into consideration, while disposing of the revision. The case set up by the petitioner is, that the respondent- landlords did not conclude evidence on 25.5.2010, as their cross- examination was deferred to 1.6.2010. The tenant-petitioner got himself cross-examined partly by the respondent-landlords, and the case was adjourned to 4.6.2010. On the said date another witness was examined. The petitioner thereafter summoned the official witness of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, who was also examined. The learned Rent Controller thereafter was on leave from 4.6.2010 to 12.6.2010, whereas 13.6.2010 was Sunday and accordingly the case was listed on 14.6.2010. In view of the fact that from 4.6.2010 to 14.6.2010 no proceedings could take place, the evidence of petitioner could not be concluded. The case of the petitioner is, that the petitioner wanted to examine one Local Commissioner for which the application was pending before the learned Rent Controller and also the Town Planner of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, with the record of the property of the landlords. That the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to lead evidence, in view of the directions of this Court. In view of the position explained above, the order dated Civil Revision No. 5060 of 2010 -3- 23.4.2010, passed by this Court, is modified, and the time for disposal of the main petition is extended by another three months as prayed for. The learned Rent Controller is now directed to take a decision on the application for appointment of Local Commissioner, and for summoning witnesses to be examined by the petitioner. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to serve the summoned witnesses by taking dasti process. In case, in spite of service, the official witnesses fail to appear, then it would be open to the learned Rent Controller to use coercive method for his presence The petitioner be given two effective opportunities to conclude his evidence. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 16, 2010 R.S.