IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1262 of 2010 Date of decision: 19th July, 2010 Ishwar Kumar Ranjan … Petitioner Versus Shiv Charan and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajesh Malik, Advocate for respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner states that he has not sought any amendment of the pleadings but has only made an application for additional evidence to place on record a certified copy of the plaint of the partition suit filed by respondent No.1. Learned counsel further states that in case admissibility of the plaint is not doubted, he will not lead any further evidence. In view of the statement made by counsel for the petitioner, it will be necessary to recapitulate brief facts of the case. The petitioner is a tenant in the shop situated at Kami Road, Near Sabzi Mandi, Ward No.2, Sonepat. He was inducted as a tenant in the year 1986 by Jai Dayal, father of the respondents-Shiv Charan and Om Parkash. The rent receipt (Annexure P-1) was executed by Shiv Charan and the receipt (Annexure P-2) by Om Parkash. Both the brothers had filed an eviction petition (Annexure P-3) on 22nd April, 2003, to which the petitioner-tenant filed a written statement on 23rd July, 2003. During Civil Revision No.1262 of 2010 the pendency of the eviction petition, respondents-petitioners to the eviction petition, were embroiled in inter-se litigation. Shiv Charan respondent No.1 instituted a suit for possession by way of partition against his brother Om Parkash respondent No.2-co petitioner to the eviction petition. It is stated that in the plaint, it was averred that the shop in dispute has fallen to the share of Om Parkash respondent No.2. The tenant, by filing an application for additional evidence, wanted to bring the plaint (Annexure P-5) on the record. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, primarily on the ground that mere filing of the suit for possession by way of partition itself is not sufficient to accept that the partition has been finalized. I have heard counsel for the parties. It is a fact that during the pendency of the eviction petition, a subsequent event has taken place and there is a dispute between the brothers, as to who has become the owner and landlord of the petitioner- tenant. Therefore, by placing on record the plaint (Annexure P-5), the Court will be better equipped to settle the relationship of landlord-tenant and the controversy can be decided at a very initial stage. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the application filed by the petitioner-tenant before the trial Court ought to be allowed. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted, the application for additional evidence is allowed and the petitioner is only permitted to place on record and prove the plaint (Annexure P-5). [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 19, 2010 rps 2