Civil Revision No.3213 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3213 of 2004 Date of decision: 10.03.2009 Jai Kishan Dass .............Petitioner Vs. Dev Raj ............Respondent Present: None for the parties. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. There is no representation at the time when the matter is called for either of the parties. Since the matter relates to a case of the year 2004 and by virtue of an interim order the trial of the case has been stayed, I deem it appropriate to take up the case and dispose of it on perusal of records. 2. An irony that may be seen is that a petition which is disposed of by the Rent Controller on 24.05.2005 to ensure no delay in the trial has ultimately resulted what the impugned order sought to avoid. 3. The petition filed before the Rent Controller was to permit additional documents to be filed in a case by the landlord seeking for eviction on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises. The tenant wanted to contend that the landlord had earlier filed another petition before another Court for subletting and he had Civil Revision No.3213 of 2004 -2- also given a statement and the said documents were also relevant for the case. The Court below rejected the petition on the ground that the petition was highly belated and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code were not applicable and the petition filed by the tenant was only to delay the proceedings. 4. It has been affirmed by several authorities that the Rent Controller shall device his own powers to adopt a procedure which is fair and proper in the absence of any specific provisions under the Rent Control Act. The power to reopen the case or power to permit parties to render additional evidence are all matters of procedure and the touchstone shall always be to see that the truth is brought out and justice is rendered after a full-fledged consideration of all the rival contentions between the parties. While the Court could be wary to any mechinations of either of the parties to deliberately prolong the trial and abuse the process of Court, the delay which could be explained or which is inevitable should best be dealt with by either awarding costs or put the party on such terms as the occasion would justify. 5. The contention, which was sought to be raised by the respondent by introduction of some documents was certainly relevant to test the landlord's petition and his entitlement to secure eviction. The delay caused by the tenant ought to have been compensated by a direction to pay costs. The revision is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside on the condition that the revision petitioner pays Rs.5,000/- as costs, which shall be paid on or before 30.04.2009, failing which the order of the Rent Controller as passed Civil Revision No.3213 of 2004 -3- shall stand confirmed. 6. The parties shall appear before the Rent Controller on 04.05.2009. The additional documents shall be received in evidence upon such proof as the tenant may place. The civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE March 10, 2009 Pankaj*