CR No.7115 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7115 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.04.2011 Sunny . . .Petitioner Versus Mukesh Kumar . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Parveen Hans, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.PPS Duggal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 23.10.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, Hansi by which an application filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence has been declined. In brief, the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’) on the grounds of personal necessity, non-payment of arrear of rent, impairment of value and utility of the demised premises and nuisance. On 23.10.2010, the Rent Controller passed the following order: “Present: Sh. B.K. Gupta, Adv. for the petitioner. Sh. Rajender Clerk of counsel for respondent. The case has been called several time since morning. The clerk for learned counsel for respondent has turned up after the peon of the Court was personally sent to the seat of learned CR No.7115 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - counsel for the respondent. It is 11.20 AM and the clerk has informed that an application has to be moved in this case. He has failed to state as to what subject the application is to be moved. He has earned a privilege to state that they will be able to move an application by 12.00 noon. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is ready to furnish some documents in rebuttal. Come up on 11.30 A.M. for presence of learned counsel for both sides and for tendering of evidence in rebuttal.” Thereafter the tenant/petitioner filed an application for additional evidence in order to produce on record orders dated 13.5.2010, 5.6.2010 and 28.7.2010 by which the landlord had withdrawn his eviction petition filed for arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.8.2006 to 16.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case also the landlord has sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent from 1.8.2006 to 16.7.2009, therefore, these documents which are the certified copies of orders passed by Rent Controller are material documents which goes to the root of the case and can be produced by leading additional evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that evidence of the petitioner was closed vide order dated 19.10.2010 and all the aforesaid three orders were passed much prior to the said date and were well within the notice of the petitioner, therefore, the documents now cannot be produced on record in the garb of the additional evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is now well settled that additional evidence can be led if the document is not manufactured or the document has come to the notice of the party leading additional evidence subsequent to the closure of the evidence but in the present case all the aforesaid three documents were well within the knowledge of the petitioner as they were passed much prior to the order dated 19.10.2010 when he closed his evidence in affirmative. Therefore, in my view, he is not entitled to CR No.7115 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - lead additional evidence even if he alleges that there was inadvertent error on his part. In view thereof, present revision petition is totally frivolous and as such the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) APRIL 26, 2011 JUDGE Vivek