CR No. 5604 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5604 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.9.2011 ... Kalyan Chand ................Petitioner vs. Harjit Kaur .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner ... K.C. Puri, J. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 3.8.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, vide which the petitioner- landlord's application for additional evidence to prove the affidavit of respondent dated 18.1.2001, has been accepted. Harjit Kaur filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, on the ground of arrears of rent. The rate of rent was alleged to be @ ` 2,150/- p.m. from 18.1.2001. The alleged affidavit dated 18.1.2001 is of tenant- defendant. The case continued for the evidence of the respondent till 16.7.2010. Prior to that petitioner exhibited the said affidavit but that order was stated to be withdrawn and affidavit was de-exhibited on CR No. 5604 of 2011 -2- 25.10.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order amounts to review the earlier order vide which the affidavit has been ordered to be de-exhibited vide order dated 25.10.2006. He has further contended that objection regarding admissibility of document should have been decided forthwith in view of authority reported as R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and others 2004 (2) LJR 595. It is contended that in view of the said authority, the alleged affidavit of tenant was de-exhibited on 25.10.2006. The landlord continued her evidence till 16.7.2010. So, the impugned order dated 3.8.2011 allowing the additional evidence is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the case of the landlord does not falls within the four corners of additional evidence and as such the learned Rent Controller has wrongly allowed the application for additional evidence. I have carefully considered the said submission made by counsel for the revisionist, but do not find any force in that submission. The Courts are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it. Mere fact that there is delay in filing the application for additional evidence is not a ground for discarding the same. The controversy in the present lis is regarding the rate of rent. According to the case of the landlord the rate of rent was increased as additional accommodation was given to the respondent and regarding the same affidavit dated 18.1.2001 was executed by the tenant – now CR No. 5604 of 2011 -3- petitioner. That is the crucial point to be determined. No doubt, the document has been de-exhibited as the same was not proved in accordance with law, but the landlord has the right to prove the said document in accordance with law. The document for additional evidence is to prove the affidavit of tenant and has been rightly allowed by the Rent Controller. So, far as authority in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder's case (Supra), is concerned, that simply states that objection raised at the time of evidence should be decided forthwith. The objection has already been decided and the document has been de-exhibited on 25.10.2006. The impugned order does not amount to review of earlier order. So, I see no illegality in the impugned order and no interference is called for. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 14.9.2011 Judge chugh