IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5575 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.09.2009 Anil Kumar Luthra .....Petitioner versus Ramesh Chander Bhatia .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 27.8.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Panipat, whereby his application to lead additional evidence has been dismissed. The application, on the face of it, appears to be totally frivolous as it claims that the son of the petitioner-tenant has recorded some conversation between the petitioner and the respondent through mobile phone, to show that the respondent-landlord does not require the demised premises for his bonafide personal necessity. The Rent Controller has dismissed the application after observing that the so called meeting or conversation took place on C.R. No.5575 of 2009 (O&M) 2 25.1.2009 and was in the knowledge of the petitioner-tenant on 27.1.2009 and 4.2.2009 when the case was fixed for his evidence. However, no such factum was brought on record by the petitioner-tenant in the evidence. In my considered view, the Rent Controller has rightly refused to entertain the application which is, prima-facie, based upon manipulated piece of so called evidence. The application appears to have been moved just to delay the proceedings. No interference with the impugned order is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 24-09-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE