Civil Revision No. 6934 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6934 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.12.2010 Murari Lal …Petitioner Versus Sanjay Kumar …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.10.2010 (Annexure P1), passed by the Rent Controller, Narnaul, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner, to lead additional evidence to prove the sale deed, which according to him is a subsequent event, has been denied. The petitioner/tenant filed an application dated 16.10.2010 (Annexure P3) praying that he be permitted to lead additional evidence and prove that during pendency of the eviction petition, the respondent/landlord has sold another property vide registered sale deed No. 240 dated 26.5.2008 with map to one Geeta Devi wife of Lal Singh Civil Revision No. 6934 of 2010 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In case during the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord has sold another shop vide registered sale deed, it provides the legitimate defence to the tenant to assail the ground of personal necessity, so pleaded by the respondent/landlord. Thus, the Court should be liberal in granting opportunity to the tenant to bring the subsequent event on the record. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted and the order dated 16.10.2010 (Annexure P1), passed by the Rent Controller, Narnaul, is set aside. The application (Annexure P3), filed by the petitioner, to lead additional evidence, is allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has submitted that the sale deed was executed on 26.5.2008 whereas the application (Annexure P3) was filed on 16.10.2010 and, therefore, the application has been filed after an inordinate delay and the tenant has not been diligent to approach the Court at the earliest. Therefore, due to delay, sufferance has been caused to the landlord and he should be compensated in monetary terms. There is merit in this contention. Hence, the petitioner is saddled with the cost of ` 5,000. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has submitted that certified copy of the sale deed dated 26.5.2008 is not admissible and, therefore, its execution should be proved by leading evidence. In support thereof, he has relied upon Narinder Nath Kapoor v. Prem Nath Khanna and Others 2009(4) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana)3066. This Court has no doubt that for proving the sale deed dated Civil Revision No. 6934 of 2010 3 26.5.2008, if the tenant adopts a course in consonance with the judgment rendered in Narinder Nath Kapoor's case (supra), the Rent Controller, Narnaul, shall provide ample opportunity to the tenant. Anything stated herein may not be construed as final opinion on the merits of the case. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 17, 2010 “DK”