IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.781 of 2010 Date of decision: 5th August, 2010 Radha Kishan … Petitioner Versus Col. (Retd.) Yudhveer Singh Yadav … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Respondent instituted an eviction petition on the ground of personal necessity. On 13th August, 2001, the following issues were framed: “(i) Whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in question on the grounds mentioned in para No.5 of the petition ? OPP (ii) Relief.” After framing of the issues, the landlord led his evidence. The tenant also concluded his evidence. Thereafter, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the tenant to plead a new fact that the respondent-landlord was a practicing Advocate and a member of the Bar. This fact was denied by the respondent-landlord stating that being a retired person from Army, he intended to start Security business. After the amendment of written statement was allowed Civil Revision No.781 of 2010 on 11th January, 2010, an application was filed by the landlord to lead evidence in rebuttal to dispute the facts pleaded by way of amendment in the written statement. The Rent Controller allowed the application of the respondent-landlord to lead evidence in rebuttal. Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate appearing for the petitioner- tenant has stated that the procedure adopted by the Rent Controller was not in consonance with the provisions of law, as the onus was upon respondent-landlord to lead evidence, therefore, he cannot lead evidence in rebuttal. If strict provisions of law are to be complied with, there is merit in the contention advanced by Mr.Mittal, but this Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that a new fact was introduced by amending the written statement, therefore, an opportunity ought to flow to the landlord to lead his evidence to dislodge the fact stated in the written statement. The best course available for the landlord was to file an application for leading additional evidence and the Court instead of permitting evidence in rebuttal, ought to have liberally considered the application for grant of additional evidence. The Code of Civil Procedure is not strictly applicable in the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller can device his own procedure for effective adjudication and dispensing of justice. Such a procedural device should not prejudice any of the parties. Even otherwise, journey of the Court is to find the truth. The technicalities cannot stand in the way. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent-landlord should get an opportunity to disprove the facts pleaded in the written statement. In case an application for additional evidence is filed, the same shall be considered by the trial Court in view of the observations made in this order. However, the landlord cannot be permitted to lead 2 Civil Revision No.781 of 2010 evidence in rebuttal. Even though, after the amendment, the tenant has not led any evidence yet prejudice indeed will be caused to the landlord, in case he is shut to lead evidence to controvert a new fact pleaded in the written statement. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 5, 2010 rps 3