VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. RISHI KUMAR MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner -landlord moved an application under Order 16 Rule 17 -A, read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to recall Jagan Nath, Postman, who had already been examined as AW -2 on behalf of the petitioner -landlord. The reason for filing the aforesaid application was in order to prove for filing the aforesaid application was in order to prove an endorsement made by the aforesaid Jagan Nath on the registered letter posted on 27.3.1997. When the said Jagan Nath on the registered letter posted on 27.3.1997. When the said Jagan Nath had appealed as AW -2, the petitioner -landlord had misplaced the original registered envelope and accordingly the aforesaid witness could not be confronted with the endorsement made thereon.

(2.) In the statement made by the petitioner -landlord as AW -4 on 7.5.1999, he reiterated that Jagan Nath, Postman, could not be confronted with the original registered envelope as the same had been misplaced. When the aforesaid envelope was traced, the instant application for additional evidence was filed by the petitioner -landlord.

(3.) One of the reasons in denying the petitioner -landlord the right to lead additional evidence is that no mention was made in the pleadings by the petitioner -landlord that he never despatched a registered letter to the respondent -tenant. This fact is, however, belied from the averments made in paragraph 3 of the impugned order of the Rent Controller, which itself notices that the petitioner -landlord had indicated in his re -joinder that he had addressed a registered legal notice to the respondent -tenant.