CR No.146 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.146 of 2011 Date of Decision: 06.04.2011 Charan Kaur alias Charanjit Kaur . . .Petitioner Versus Ravi Kumar . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Hem Raj Kapil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 1.11.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh by which an application filed by the tenant for seeking permission to produce Registered sale deed No.6969 dated 17.2.2004 registered in the office of Sub Registrar on 19.2.2004 in favour of the petitioner by way of secondary evidence has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Rent Controller has committed an error in exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the application although the said property is not purchased by the petitioner rather the property was purchased by her husband in her name. He also submits that if the said order is allowed to be maintained then the whole case would be opened and shall be decided afresh. On the contrary learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that he had filed an application submitting therein that the sale deed was executed on 19.2.2004 whereas the eviction petition was filed on 22.12.2006 in which the landlord/petitioner denied the existence of the sale deed in question as a result of which the said application has been moved by the tenant for the purpose of producing the said sale deed on record by way of secondary evidence as the original sale deed is obviously in possession of the landlord. CR No.146 of 2011 - 2 - I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. The sale deed, which has been shown to the Court by learned counsel for the petitioner is pertaining to an open plot which is executed in favour of Charanjit Kaur. The said property is within the urban area of Barnala and according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner had already constructed a shop on the said land whereas she has averred in the eviction petition that she does not possess similar property within the urban area concerned and has not vacated similar property in the urban area after commencement of the Act of 1949. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no error committed by the learned Rent Controller in passing the order dated 1.11.2010 because the evidence which is sought to be produced on record by way of secondary evidence goes to the root of the case and is required to be considered. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) APRIL 06, 2011 JUDGE Vivek