Civil Revision No. 6202 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Civil Revision No. 6202 of 2007 Date of Decision 3.7.2009 Math Baba Jagan Nath Puri .... Petitioner. Versus Dharam Pal .... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present:- Dr. Parveen Hans, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailender Mohan, Advocate, for the respondent. Surya Kant, J. (oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Hansi, declining permission to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal. The petitioner has filed an eviction petition against the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that the demised premises has become unfit for human habitation. After leading some of its evidence, the petitioner-Trust, close the same on 29.11.2006 but “reserved the right to lead the evidence in rebuttal.” Thereafter, the respondent-tenant lead and concluded his evidence. When the case was fixed for arguments at that stage the petitioner-landlord moved the present application to permit it to lead evidence in rebuttal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am Civil Revision No. 6202 of 2007 2 of the considered view that no case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. There is indeed no dispute that onus to prove as to whether or not the demised premises has become unfit for human habitation, lies upon the petitioner-landlord. The petitioner, therefore, ought to have led its evidence in affirmative. The option, either to produce evidence at the first instance or by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party as envisaged by Rule 3, Order 18 C.P.C, is available only in respect of those issues which are required to be proved by the other party. Such a descretion cannot be exercised by a party in respect of those issues which are required to be proved by it. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondent-tenant has sprung surprises by producing some site plans etc, it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is permitted to produce additional evidence to rebut the same. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner may, if so permissible, move an application to lead additional evidence, which the learned Rent Controller shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. Disposed of. July 3, 2009 (Surya Kant) tripti Judge