Civil Revision No. 4276 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4276 of 2011 Date of decision 18.7.2011. Shakuntla Devi ...... Petitioner. versus Chaman Lal Narula ...... Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Shri Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C.PURI . J. Challenge in the present revision petition is the order dated 11.5.2011 passed by Shri Kapil Aggarwal, Rent Controller, Faridkot vide which the application filed by the landlord/petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – the CPC) for leading additional evidence, was dismissed. Briefly stated Shakuntla Devi landlord now revisionist filed ejectment petition against Chaman Lal under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the ejectment of Chaman Lal respondent from the two shops situated in the area of Municipal Committee, Kotakpura Civil Revision No. 4276 of 2011 2 Tehsil and District Faridkot on the ground of non-payment of rent, ceases to occupy, personal necessity etc. It is averred in the application that the respondent has joined the service with some Printing Press and ceased to occupy the shop. The case was fixed for rebuttal evidence. Thereafter, the landlord filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC for allowing her to produce certified copy of challan dated 19.5.2010, certified copy of the summons for 31.8.2010 and certified copies of the orders dated 24.8.2010 and 31.8.2010. The application was opposed by the respondent and the learned Rent Controller after hearing both the sides dismissed the application with the observation that bill and receipts intended by the landlord to be produced by way of additional evidence is not a material evidence which is required to be brought on the record for the just decision of the case. As per eviction petition, the respondent has joined the services of Printing Press and ceased to occupy on 1.4.2006. The petitioner can succeed on the ground of ceased to occupy in case she is able to prove that respondent has not occupied the premises for four months prior to the filing of the ejectment petition without any sufficient cause. The documents sought to be produced are of the year 2010. The Parliament in its wisdom has deleted order 18 Rule 17-A of the CPC in order to curtail the delay in decision of the cases. The evidence sought to be produced will not improve the case of the landlord. So, in view of the above discussion, no ground for interference is made out. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. Civil Revision No. 4276 of 2011 3 A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE July 18, 2011 sv