- (1.) The present petition filed by the tenant is directed against the order dated 19.11.2011 whereby the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner to give report regarding vacant land lying between the college building and railway line has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Panipat.
(2.) The petitioner, who is a tenant in shop No. 2 is defending the eviction petition filed on the ground of personal necessity by the Managing Committee, Arya College, Panipat. The tenant filed the application dated 02.06.2011 whereby it is contended that his evidence is going on and during the evidence of AW1, all questions had been put to him regarding the carving out the plots to sell the land, the vacant land lying in the colony and most of the building even at present is lying vacant, and therefore, the need to get a Local Commissioner appointed who would give a report to that effect. The said application has not found favour with the Rent Controller, Panipat.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the landlord has concealed material facts, therefore, the Rent Controller, Panipat was in error in declining the application. The reasoning given by the Rent Controller, Panipat is that the tenant is to prove the pleadings in his evidence and he is not to get his evidence collected through a Local Commissioner appointed by the Court. It has also been noticed that the application has been moved when the case was fixed for evidence of the respondent with last opportunity. The Rent Controller has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in Bhajan Singh Vs Avtar Singh Kolar,2010 2 RCR(Civ) 673 wherein it has been held that it is not permissible in law for the tenant to seek direction from the Court to create evidence in their favour.;