C.R. No. 4342 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.R. No. 4342 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12 .07.2010 Om Parkash Arya ....Petitioner Versus Ramesh Kumar Kohli ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sarwan Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate for the respondent. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Landlord having lost in both the Courts below has preferred present revision under Section 15(6) of the Haryana (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act). Brief facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that the landlord – petitioner moved a petition for ejectment under Section 13 of the 1973 Act against the tenant in respect of shop in dispute on three grounds (a) respondent is not a good tenant and has not paid rent with effect from C.R. No. 4342 of 2008 2 1.5.1999 to 30.4.2001 despite repeated requests and demands, (b) shop in dispute is required by the petitioner for his personal necessity (c) shop in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and therefore, respondent – tenant is liable to be ejected. Tenant - respondent contested the claim of the petitioner. The Rent Controller vide impugned judgement dated 28.1.2006 has found that the entire rent due with effect from 1.5.1999 to 30.4.2001 was tendered by the respondent in Court within 15 days from the date of his appearance alongwith costs and interest as assessed by the Court and the same was accepted by the respondent - landlord without any reservation. Therefore, there cannot be any eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Rent Controller has further found that the landlord has no bonafide and genuine need for his personal use of the property in question. The Rent Controller has also observed that the landlord has examined Kanwar Pal, Draftsman, Rajesh Kumar, photographer and S.S.P. Bose, Building Expert. However, the landlord did not tender these witnesses for cross-examination. Therefore, Examination-i Chief of these witnesses and the report submitted by the building expert is not proved. The Rent Controller further observed that although, photographs of the shop in dispute were placed on file to prove that the shop in question is unsafe and unfit for human habitation, however, negatives of the shop in question were not produced, hence, photographs can also be not relied upon. Ultimately, eviction suit of the landlord was dismissed vide judgement dated 28.1.2006. Feeling aggrieved from the judgement dated 28.1.2006, petitioner – landlord preferred appeal before the Appellate Court being C.R. No. 4342 of 2008 3 No.3-RA/07, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgement dated 26.3.2008. The Appellate Court also observed that the petitioner – landlord has not produced his witnesses for cross-examination and could not prove the report of the building expert, while report produced by the tenant was duly proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner – landlord vehemently argued that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner- landlord to produce his witnesses for cross-examination and to prove the report prepared by the building expert of the petitioner. I have examined the record of the Courts below. Orders dated 31.1.2005 and 21.2.2005 read as follows: - “One petitioner’s witness is present and tendered his affidavit but his cross-examination was deferred on the request of the respondent as his counsel is out of station, which is not opposed. Now to come up on 21.2.05 for cross-examination of this witness. Petitioner is directed to produce PW Rajesh Kumar on the date fixed for his cross-examination. Sd/-RC, Bhiwani/31.1.05. One PW is present and cross-examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner tendered into evidence Mark A1 to Mark A3 and Ex.P1/A to Ex.P1/E. Adjournment sought for remaining evidence which is highly opposed. The petitioner has already availed three effective opportunities. To my mind there is no justification to give more adjournment. Hence, the evidence of the petitioner is hereby closed by Court order. Now to come up on 2.4.05 for the evidence of respondent. Respondent is C.R. No. 4342 of 2008 4 directed to file PF, DM, list of witnesses within seven days, otherwise, at own responsibility. Sd/-RC, Bhiwani/21.2.2005.” From the perusal of the order sheet of the Rent Controller, I find that ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner – landlord to prove his witnesses. However, he wanted further time which was declined by this Court in a revision petition filed by the landlord. In view of the order passed by this Court in an earlier revision petition seeking more time to produce witnesses for cross-examination, I do not find any force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Judgements passed by both the Courts below cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. Petition is devoid of merit and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 12.07.2010 sk.