- (1.) The Revision is preferred by the landlord who laid a petition seeking eviction on the ground of personal occupation.
(2.) The tenant-respondent did not avail the opportunity granted by the trial Court to lead evidence but it appears that he filed an application praying for summoning some witnesses. The trial Court having found that respondent-tenant had not chosen to enter into the witness box, though he had filed an application for summoning the witnesses, chose to close the evidence on the side of the respondent-tenant.
(3.) The respondent-tenant took up the matter in appeal before the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court, Patiala). The Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court, Patiala) having heard both sides held that an appeal is maintainable before it as against order of closure of evidence passed by the trial Court. The Appellate Court having found that some more opportunities will have to be given as demand by equity set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court and permitted the respondent-tenant to lead evidence.;