IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.44 of 2011 Date of decision : May 13, 2011 Tara Dutt Sharma …Petitioner Versus Sanjeev Pandit …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Sharma, Adavocate. For the Respondents : Nemo. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) CMP(M) No.314/2011 Heard. Delay condoned. Application stands disposed of. C. Review No.44/2011 Heard and gone through the record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court’s judgment, dated 5.10.2010, calls for review, because the contention of the petitioner that his evidence had been closed by the order of Rent Controller, has not been taken into account and also that the view taken by this Court that there was an admission by the petitioner in his reply (Ext. PW1/C) to a notice by the landlord about his being a tenant, is not correct as the admission was not in respect of the premises, in question, but some other building. 3. A petition for eviction of the petitioner was filed by the respondent before the Rent Controller, on the ground that Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the building was required by the landlord for reconstruction. Rent Controller allowed that petition. Appeal filed by the petitioner before Appellate Authority stood dismissed. Petitioner had filed an application for additional evidence before the Appellate Authority, alleging that his evidence had been shut by the Rent Controller, without affording him due and proper opportunity. That application was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Petitioner then approached this Court by filing a revision petition, under the relevant provisions of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. That revision petition was dismissed, vide order dated 5.10.2010. It is this order, the review of which has been sought on the aforesaid grounds. 4. Petitioner cannot be heard to say that his evidence had been shut by the Rent Controller, without affording him due opportunity, for the reason that he moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, before Appellate Authority, to lead additional evidence which was dismissed. Order dismissing that application was also challenged in the revision petition that was filed in this Court and this Court dealt with that aspect of the matter and held that the petition for additional evidence, even if allowed, would have served no purpose, in view of the admission by the petitioner, in his reply to a notice, received from the landlord-respondent, in which he admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant, saying that he had been inducted as tenant by the grandmother of the landlord. The issue was discussed in detail and, therefore, …3… petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same point, to seek review. 5. No other point has been urged before me by the learned counsel or the petitioner. Hence, the petition is dismissed, with costs of `5000/- , which on realization, shall be deposited with the H.P. High Court Bar Association. March 13, 2011 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J