Civil Revision No. 4843 of 2009 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4843 of 2009 Date of decision : 18.5.2010 Kulwant Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Kulwinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Chanan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaswinder Singh Arora, Advocate and Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-landlord has filed a petition for the ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the tenanted premises on various averments including an averment that the premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In order to be able to adduce and file expert evidence, petitioner-landlord entrusted the matter to a building expert. The petitioner-landlord also filed an application dated 24.5.2002 whereby the learned Rent Controller was requested to issue a direction to the respondent-tenant to allow access to the building expert to inspect the premises and also to photograph it himself or get it photographed through a photographer. In the course of the application, the relief applied for was restricted to the property in dispute i.e. tenanted premises. The plea came to be allowed and the expert testified at the trial too. Thereafter, the petitioner-landlord filed another plea before the learned Rent Controller for being allowed to adduce additional evidence in order to be able to get the entire building (including tenanted premises) Civil Revision No. 4843 of 2009 -2- ***** inspected by expert aforementioned again. The averment, thus, was that the testimony made by the expert on an earlier occasion pertained only to tenanted premises and the petitioner-landlord desires to place on record additional evidence qua the state of entire building which included the tenanted premises as well. The plea did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller. In obtaining that view, the learned Rent Controller observed that the filing of the plea, that too only at the fag end of the trial of the case, was only with a view to fill up lacunae. It was also noticed, in the context, that the expert had given his testimony as early as on 17.5.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner-landlord availed of numerous opportunities to adduce evidence and it ultimately closed on 4.2.2008. I find myself in complete agreement with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Rent Controller. It was on the own request of the petitioner-landlord that the building expert inspected the tenanted premises. At that point of time, there was no request for inspection of the entire building. The making of that request at the fag end of the trial is legally inappropriate. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 18, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE