- (1.) The present revision petition arises from impugned order dated 13.01.2011, Annexure P1 wherein the Rent Controller, Jalandhar has recorded that PW1 and PW2 have been examined and the petitioner has closed his evidence and fixed the case for the evidence of the respondent. The counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that PW1 and PW2 have not been allowed to be cross-examined and the Rent Controller, Jalandhar has acted with illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned order. Sequence of events is necessary for deciding the present controversy.
(2.) Pw1 and PW2 had tendered their affidavits by way of evidence on 27.04.2010 and 08.11.2010 before the Rent Controller, Jalandhar and the case was adjourned to 15.09.2010 and the following order was passed: Present: Sh. V.K. Sareen counsel for the petitioners. Sh. Ramit Arora counsel for the respondent AW-1 examined in chief. His cross-examination deferred. Now to come up on 08.11.2010 for cross examination of AW-1 at own responsibility. Remaining evidence of applicant be also produced on the said date at own responsibility. Thereafter, similar order was also passed regarding PW2 on 08.11.2010 which reads as under: Present: Counsel for the parties. PW2 is present and examined in chief. His cross-examination is deferred for 2.12.2010. PW-1 present for cross-examination is also bound down for the date fixed. On 02.12.2010, the said petitioner witnesses were present but were not examined and were bound down for 07.01.2011 for cross-examination subject to last opportunity along with costs of Rs. 100/- to be deposited in the legal aid fund and it was further directed that the remaining evidence would be produced on the said date. On 07.01.2011, the said witnesses were not present and the respondent also moved an application that the counsel has gone out of station and accordingly, the case was adjourned to 13.01.2011 for the evidence of the landlord on his own responsibility subject to last opportunity on an additional cost of Rs. 100/-. Thereafter, on 13.01.2011, the impugned order was passed which reads as under: Present: Counsel for the parties. PW-1 and PW-2 examined. Petitioner closed his evidence. Now to come up on 07.02.2011 for evidence of the respondent.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner, accordingly, has submitted that on 07.01.2011, the witnesses were not present and the counsel for the tenant was present but cross-examination of witnesses could not be conducted on account of their absence and accordingly, the case had been adjourned to 13.01.2011 and the Rent Controller had fixed the case for evidence of the respondent. The counsel for the respondent contends that vide separate order of the same day, the Rent Controller has noted that opportunity was given and the witnesses were present and cross-examination was recorded as nil and thus, the impugned order was passed and seeks to justify the impugned order and points out that the order has been passed on 13.01.2011 and the present petition has been filed on 13.02.2010 and thus, there is delay in approaching this Court.;