cr no.1936 of 2009.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.1936 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 14.12.2009 **** Amit Vashisth . . . . Petitioner VS. Mahesh Kumar . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate for the respondent ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.03.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Rewari, whereby, an application moved by the petitioner-tenant to lead additional evidence in order to prove that both the photographs Ex.A1 and A2 pertained to the same property but different ‘boards’ are shown to have been displayed by the respondent-landlord through ‘scanning’ and/or ‘scientific manipulation’ in order to mislead as if the building shown in those photographs is not being used by him to run ‘PMD Health Club and Gym’, has been dismissed. cr no.1936 of 2009.doc - 2 - (2). Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and the impugned order perused. (3). The undisputed facts are that the respondent-landlord has filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal necessity. It appears that the respondent-landlord has averred that he requires the demised premises to run some health club/Gym. With a view to prove that the respondent-landlord is already running health club/Gym in another premises and that the photographs Ex.A1 has been manipulated to conceal the availability of the said other premises, that the petitioner-tenant wanted to lead additional evidence. His application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Rewari, giving rise to this revision petition. (4). In my considered opinion no useful purpose can be served by permitting the petitioner-tenant to get the photographs Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 ‘compared’ or ‘scanned’ as during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent- landlord has not disputed the fact that the building shown in both the photographs is same. He, however, categorically denies the respondent’s ownership qua the said building. (5). In these circumstances, no case to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.03.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Rewari is made out, except to observe that the petitioner-tenant shall be at liberty, to move an appropriate cr no.1936 of 2009.doc - 3 - application, if so permissible, to prove that the building shown in photographs Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 (i.e. the same building) is owned by the respondent-landlord and/or is in his possession as a matter of right. (6). Disposed of with liberty aforesaid. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 14.12.2009 vishal shonkar