IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.7054 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.12.2010 Rattan Lal ....Petitioner Versus Satpal and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner has questioned the observations made by the learned Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 23.9.2010. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner was permitted to be impleaded as a party at a stage when the respondents, evidence had already been closed. The other respondents arrayed in the petition are close relatives of the petitioner who had been contesting the proceedings throughout. The impugned order also reveals that the respondents availed 28 opportunities to conclude their evidence. The Rent Controller while dealing with the application has systematically dealt with each of the witnesses who have been examined and how their cross-examination is not germane as more or less they have supported the case of the petitioner. In this eventuality the C.R.No.7054 of 2010 (O&M) -2- observations of the Rent Controller that except for Satpal respondent there is no other witness who needs to be cross-examined cannot be faulted with. It is obvious that other respondents, who are close relatives of the petitioner are enjoying the possession and are facing petition, have resorted to this process in order to delay the proceedings. The matter in question has been pending since 2002. Since there is no infirmity in the impugned order, the petition is dismissed. 15.12.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss