TRENDSETTERS Vs. KANWAL THAKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner -landlady Kanwal Thakar Singh (herein respondent) had filed a petition under Sec. 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against respondents i.e. M/s Trendsetters, SCO 18 (Ground/Mezzanine Floor), Sector 17-E, Chandigarh and its partner Sh.Ramesh Kapoor (herein petitioners), which has been pending in the Court of Rent Controller, U.T., Chandigarh. During the course of proceedings, respondents/tenants had filed applications for sending the pen-drive containing audio and video recordings for forensic examination and for directing the petitioner, her counsel Sh.R.S. Walia, Sh. Subodh Walia, respondent Sh.Ramesh Kapoor and Sh.Atul Kapoor to get their video and audio recorded in Central Forensic Science Laboratory for the reason that defence of the respondents is that petitioner wanted to increase rent and when negotiations failed, the ejectment petition was filed on the false ground of personal necessity and further the petitioner had raised objections to the certificate filed by the respondents under Sec. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. According to the respondents recording in the pen-drive has relevance to the matter in issue. Those applications were opposed on behalf of the petitioner (herein respondent). Vide order dtd. 3/9/2021, the Rent Controller, U.T. Chandigarh dismissed both the applications. Feeling aggrieved the respondents have filed the instant revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists besides going through the record.

(3.) The Rent Controller, U.T., Chandigarh placing reliance upon judgment Mohinder Singh Versus Baljit Singh (2014) 176 PLR 535 in which judgment Shibcharan Das Versus (Firm) Gulabchand Chhotey Lal, AIR 1936 Allahabad 157 has been referred observing that 'where negotiations are being conducted with a view to settlement in should be held that these negotiations are being conducted "without prejudice". In such circumstances, it is not open for one of the parties to give evidence of an admission made by another'. Learned Rent Controller, U.T. Chandigarh has observed that from the applications filed by respondents, it comes out that recordings in pen-drive are of negotiations, which were recorded by Sh.Atul Kapoor, therefore, the same could not be allowed to be put to the petitioner being irrelevant. As such, the application vide which petitioner had raised objections to respondents certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Evidence Act and the other application filed by respondents for sending pen-drive containing audio and video recordings for forensic examination were dismissed.