CR No.5664 of 2008 [1] THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5664 of 2008 Date of Decision: 4 - 11 - 2008 Subhash Grover ....Petitioner v. Tarsem Lal ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gian Inder Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) Petitioner is a landlord and owner of House No.31, Sector 11, Panchkula. Vide Annexure P-4 he filed ejectment petition seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant. In para 7 of the ejectment petition, it was specifically stated as under:- “7. That the petitioner also paying the rent regarding the rented portion at Chandigarh House No.1705, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh and landlord of the same house also insists the petitioner to vacate the rented accommodation of House No.1705, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh.” A written statement was filed by the respondent-tenant and in reply to para 7, it was stated as under:- “7. That the contents of para No.7 is wrong and denied. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is residing in his CR No.5664 of 2008 [2] own house so the question of paying the rent by the petitioner does not arise.” The reply would show that it was evasive and it was not specifically denied that petitioner-landlord is not owner of House No.1705, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh. Counsel for the respondent states that it was stated therein that petitioner is residing in his own house. Therefore, whether petitioner is owner of House No.1705, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh is a question to be determined? Petitioner led his evidence and the respondent also concluded his evidence. Thereafter an application was filed by the petitioner praying that he be permitted to lead additional evidence by placing on record deed of conveyance, Annexure P-2 to show that House No.1705, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh is owned by Shri Mathur Singh. This prayer was declined. Petitioner filed Civil Revision No.2498 of 2008 in this Court, in which the following order was passed:- “The prayer of the petitioner for leading additional evidence has been declined on the ground that he knew from the very beginning that the stand of the respondent is that he is staying in his own house. Still he did not take any action to lead evidence to prove otherwise. Issues in this case were framed on 18.8.2004. The evidence of the respondent has also been closed. Taking these aspects into consideration, the prayer of the petitioner for leading additional evidence was declined. The case of the petitioner would not be covered by the provisions of any procedural law in this regard. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed.” CR No.5664 of 2008 [3] Petitioner sought to file an application Annexure P-7 to lead evidence in rebuttal as ownership of House No.1705, Sector 34, Chandigarh was disputed and in evidence respondent stated that this house is owned by the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties. Shri Vinod S. Bhardwaj relied upon a judgment of this Court in Brij Lal v. Yash Pal, 1985(1) RCR (Rent) 551 to state that technical rules of procedure of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to proceedings under the Rent Act and Rent Controller can device his own procedure for the just adjudication of the case. It was held therein that the Court is competent to grant an opportunity to the landlord to lead evidence after tenant had led evidence in rebuttal of the evidence led by the landlord in support of the case. Reliance has also been placed on Lal Chand and others v. Kishan Murari Goel and others, 1995(1) RCR 274 wherein it was held that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not expressly applicable to the rent proceedings and the Rent Controller to find out the truth can device appropriate procedure. It was further held therein that Rent Controller cannot be held bound by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Further reliance has been placed on Harcharan Singh v. Ashok Kumar, 2003(1) RCR (Rent) 696 in which it has been held that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure would not apply ipso facto on the Rent Controller. To controvert the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gian Inder Sharma appearing for the respondent has placed reliance on Tejinder Kaur v. Kishan Singh and others, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 485 to state that the right to lead evidence in rebuttal shall not accrue CR No.5664 of 2008 [4] to the party in respect to an issue which is already within the knowledge of that party. He has further relied upon Khazani v. Mahabir Singh & Ors., 2007(2) HRR 483. Both these judgments relied upon by counsel for the respondent pertain to the civil suits. It has been further stated by Shri Sharma that now the petitioner cannot be permitted to fill in the lacuna in the evidence. The endeavour of the Court is to arrive at a truth. The Courts are not to punish any body for the mistake committed or the lapse. The Courts must pursue their goal to find out truth and veracity of the allegations. The Court has to dispense just adjudication to the parties, who approach it. In the present case, the controversy is involved whether House No.1705, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh is owned by the petitioner or not? In the ejectment petition, it was specifically stated that he is residing there on rent and the landlord is pressurising him to vacate the premises. In written statement, it was stated that landlord is residing in his own house. If lapse has been committed due to inadvertence on the part of the petitioner, he cannot be foreclosed for ever. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that he will be only tendering certified copies of the sale deed and the conveyance deed. Accordingly, the present petition is accepted. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to tender certified copies of the sale deed and the conveyance deed. However, the tenant will be at liberty to demolish this piece of evidence. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 4, 2008. JUDGE RC