Civil Revision No.6447 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6447 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.03.2009 Bhupinder Singh and another .............Petitioners Vs. S. Jit Singh and others ............Respondents Present: Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The tenant, who resisted the application filed by the landlord in which landlord sought for letting in rebuttal evidence on furnishing an affidavit, was handed down an order against him and hence, in revision petition before this Court. 2. The objection of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord who has given his affidavit did not lead evidence in the first place and allowed a witness to be examined. After the completion of the side of tenant, the landlord sought himself to be examined in rebuttal evidence on the affidavit already submitted by him. The contention of learned counsel is that the permission ought not to have been sought under Order 18 Rule 3-A, which mandates that the party shall examine himself before any of his witnesses, unless excepted by leave of the Court. This point is countered by learned counsel for the Civil Revision No.6447 of 2007 (O&M) -2- respondent referring to a decision of this Court in Megh Nath Vs. Sarla Devi and another 1991(1) PLR 360 that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3-A are not attracted to the rent control proceedings and that a Rent Controller is entitled to evolve a procedure on the well known canons of justice. The surviving objection of the revision petitioner is that the affidavit of the landlord cannot be allowed to traverse beyond the subject on which the burden of proof was on the tenant and that any other averment in his affidavit that is sought to be read as chief examination ought to be eschewed. The landlord shall be at liberty to file a fresh affidavit confining his affirmation on oath only to the issue in respect of which the burden of proof was on the tenant and for which rebuttal is necessary. 3. Subject to this modification, this civil revision petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 19, 2009 Pankaj*