C. R. No. 6222 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 6222 of 2011 Date of Decision : October 12, 2011 Ratti Ram .... Petitioner Vs. Tej Parkash and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Ratti Ram has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 08.09.2011 passed by learned Rent Controller, Rewari, thereby allowing application of landlord Parbhu Dayal (since deceased and represented by respondents herein as his legal representatives) for additional evidence, on payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost. Ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short – the Act) has been filed against the alleged tenant-petitioner alleging relationship of landlord and C. R. No. 6222 of 2011 2 tenant between the parties. The tenant alleged that his father Jee Sukh had taken the disputed property on rent from Ram Kishan prior to the year 1942. Rent was paid up to the year 1964 to Ram Kishan, who thereafter left Rewari. No rent was received thereafter by Ram Kishan, who died some time after the year 1964. The petitioner herein accordingly denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The landlord filed application for additional evidence alleging that tenant's brother Chander had taken the disputed property on rent from Mathura Parsad – adopted son of Ram Kishan vide rent note dated 24.06.1952. Chander had no male issue and had four daughters only, who were residing in their matrimonial homes. Chander was residing with his brother Ratti Ram – petitioner herein. After the death of Chander, Ratti Ram came in possession of the disputed shop and became tenant therein. It was alleged that rent note dated 24.06.1952 executed by Chander was earlier not traceable, but the same has now been traced. The same was sought to be produced by way of additional evidence. The application for additional evidence was resisted by the petitioner herein. It was alleged that the aforesaid rent note has not been pleaded. Execution of rent note by Chander was also denied. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Rent Controller, Rewari, vide impugned order dated C. R. No. 6222 of 2011 3 08.09.2011, allowed application of landlord for additional evidence, on payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the rent note in question has not been pleaded. However, the contention cannot be accepted because relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been pleaded and the rent note is sought to be produced to prove the said relationship. Rent note, being evidence to prove the said relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, was not required to be pleaded. Consequently, application for additional evidence could not be disallowed on this ground. On the other hand, the rent note is almost sixty years old. It is for the landlord to prove due execution thereof. The petitioner herein would not be prejudiced by the proposed additional evidence because he would get opportunity to rebut the same. The petitioner herein has been duly compensated by cost of Rs.5,000/- for the proposed additional evidence to be led by the landlord. Learned Rent Controller has recorded sound reasons for allowing production of additional evidence on payment of cost. The impugned order does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction or exercise of jurisdiction not vested or illegal exercise of jurisdiction. The C. R. No. 6222 of 2011 4 impugned order cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. It is, however, expressly made clear that nothing observed herein shall have any bearing on the merits of the ejectment petition or evidentiary value of the impugned rent note. October 12, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE