IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4961 of 2009 Date of Decision : September 01, 2009 Surinder Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Jai Parkash and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. The present revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa, on 13.8.2009, whereby an application filed by landlords/respondents No.1 and 2 for permission to lead additional evidence, was allowed. The landlords have filed a petition under Haryana Rent Act (Act No. 11 of 1973), whereby they sought ejectment of the petitioner and Arjun @ Bhushan, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.3 to 6 on the ground that the shop let out to them was unfit and unsafe for human habitation as it was more than 50 years old and outlived its life. It is also pleaded therein that both the tenants had sublet the shop in dispute to respondent No.7 without the consent of the landlords. Civil Revision No. 4961 of 2009 -2- In their written statement, the tenants took the preliminary objection that they did not sublet the shop to anyone and, therefore, there was no question of taking the consent of the landlords. Following the settlement of the issues, the landlords led their entire evidence in affirmative. Thereafter, the tenants also examined their evidence and closed the same. At that stage, an application was filed by the landlords to lead the evidence in rebuttal, or, in the alternative, for additional evidence on the ground that while the tenants were examining their evidence, they came to know that Rajinder Kumar-respondent No.7, had submitted a declaration form and details of machinery with regard to the Shanky Printing Press and those documents were prepared by him in the presence of Shri R.C.Sharma, Advocate, Pehowa. Those documents were submitted by Rajinder Kumar in response to the letter dated 25.3.1984 from Commissioner and Secretary, Home Department, Haryana. Even Surinder Kumar-petitioner, who was one of the tenants, had shifted to some other shop, wherein he was running a press under the name and style of Queen Offset Printing Press. He had also filed a declaration form and details of machinery. Copies of the above said declaration form and the details were already on the file and when Surinder Kumar-petitioner was confronted with the same during his cross-examination, he did not admit those documents. These documents were relevant and necessary for the just decision of the case and would also be helpful in arriving at a conclusion as to who was keeper of the above said presses. These Civil Revision No. 4961 of 2009 -3- documents could not be produced earlier despite due diligence when the landlords were leading their evidence in affirmative, as they were not in their knowledge. The application submitted by the landlords was opposed by Surinder Kumar-petitioner by stating that he was running his business of printing press since the date of inception of tenancy and has never parted with the possession of the tenancy rights to Rajinder Kumar. He was still in possession of the shop as a tenant. The evidence proposed to be led by the landlords, if any, was not an evidence of rebuttal and, therefore, they had no right to lead the same in rebuttal nor they could lead any such evidence by way of additional evidence. Vide order dated 13.8.2009, the learned trial Court allowed the application of the landlords for leading additional evidence so as to produce the declaration forms submitted by Rajinder Kumar-respondent No.7 and also by the petitioner under the provisions of Press and Registration of Books Act (Punjab), 1942. There is no material on the file from which it could be established that the landlords were in possession of the declaration forms and details of machinery as submitted by Surinder Kumar co-tenant and Rajinder Kumar-respondent No.7 as required under the Press and Registration of Books Act (Punjab), 1942. It was only during the recording of the evidence of the tenants that the landlords came in Civil Revision No. 4961 of 2009 -4- possession of the aforementioned documents. Those documents were put to Surinder Kumar, co-tenant, during his cross-examination but he did not admit the same. Under these circumstances, prayer made by the landlords to produce the aforementioned documents by way of additional evidence has been rightly granted by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Jagdev Singh and Ors. V Darshan Singh and others 2007(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 794 and Tejinder Kaur V Kishan Singh and others 2008(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 485 to contend that by praying for leading evidence in rebuttal, the landlords were making an attempt to fill the lacunae in their evidence. Once they had already led their evidence in affirmative on the issues, the onus of proof of which was on them, they could not seek assistance of the Court to lead evidence in rebuttal on those very issues. The aforementioned two judgments rendered by this Court pertained to the fact situation where the party to the suit had been allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal. On the other hand, the trial Court in the present case has allowed the landlords to prove by way of additional evidence the declaration forms and the details of the machinery submitted by Rajinder Kumar-respondent No.7 and Surinder Kumar-petitioner. Those documents were not in the knowledge of the landlords earlier and for that reason those could not be produced when the ejectment petition was initially filed or the evidence led by the landlords in support of the Civil Revision No. 4961 of 2009 -5- averments made in the ejectment petition. It was only during the time when Surinder Kumar, co-tenant, was in the witness box that he was confronted by the landlords with the aforementioned documents but he refused to admit those documents. Under these circumstances, the aforementioned judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Resultantly, there is no merit in the present revision, which is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 01, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1