Civil Revision No. 4575 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4575 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.7.2010 Inderjeet Aggarwal …Petitioner Versus Manoj Aeri and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vinod Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The petitioner/landlord has filed an eviction petition and after the filing of written statement, the following issues were framed:- “(i) Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPA (ii) Whether the respondents are in arrears of the rent with effect from 1.5.2002 as claimed by the applicant? OPA. (iii) Whether the applicant requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation? OPA (iv) Whether the demised premises is a portion of a residential building? OPA Civil Revision No. 4575 of 2010 2 (v) Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the demised premises? OPA. (vi) Relief”. Regarding all these issues, the onus to prove the same was upon the petitioner/landlord. One of the issues framed was to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant as the respondents/tenants have denied the tenancy. The petitioner had proved receipts by way of secondary evidence whereupon the tenants had appended their signatures. However, the petitioner did not examine the Handwriting Expert. The respondents/tenants examined the Handwriting Expert who stated that the receipts do not contain their signatures. At that stage, an application (Annexure P1) was filed whereby he sought permission to examine the Handwriting Expert. The Rent Controller, Ferozepur, held that since the onus was upon the petitioner/landlord, he cannot lead this evidence in rebuttal. The journey of the Court is to find truth. Nobody can suffer for his lapse if the same was bonafide. Even though the petitioner/landlord ought to be vigilant, but it is a common knowledge that mistakes do occur. For any lapse or mistake, nobody can be punished as the Court has to take its own course to find the truth. Therefore, in these circumstances, in case an application for leading additional evidence is filed, the same shall be duly considered by the Rent Controller, Ferozepur, according to the provisions of law. However, the trial Court had rightly not permitted the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal, as that would have not been the right course. The order of trial Court is upheld. Civil Revision No. 4575 of 2010 3 The present revision petition is disposed of in view of the observations made above. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 26, 2010 “DK”