- (1.) In an application for ejectment of the petitioner filed by the landlord-respondent following four issues were framed on December 3, 1971 : 1. Whether the godown in question is a part of the shop of the tenancy of the respondent? 2 whether respondent is liable to eviction on the grounds alleged in paragraph 3 of the petition? 3. Whether the notice determining the tenancy of the respondent is illegal? 4. Relief. After framing the issues the case was adjourned for the evidence of the parties to April 4, 1972. No evidence of any of the parties was present on that day. The case was, therefore, adjourned to June 3, 1972, for evidence. On that day the counsel for the parties stated that talks for compromise were proceeding, and, therefore, the Rent Controller, adjourned the case to June 5, 1972. On that day it was reported that negotiations for compromise had failed. The proceedings were then adjourned to July 20, 1972. No opening order of that date has been recorded by the Rent Controller to show as to how and in what circumstances he started recording the evidence of the tenant's witnesses before concluding the evidence of the landlord respondent in the affirmative. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner submits that no witness of the landlord was present and since one witness of the tenant was present, the Rent Controller asked the tenant to produce that witness and also himself as his own witness and gave assurance to the counsel for the tenant that he would be allowed an opportunity to produce his evidence in rebuttal on the issues of which the burden was on the landlord. Be that as it may, the fact remains that two R.Ws. including the tenant-petitioner himself were examined on that day, and at the conclusion of their evidence, the counsel for the tenant made a statement closing his client's case. Thereupon the case was adjourned several times to various dates on which the evidence of the landlord was recorded piecemeal. Ultimately the landlord's evidence was closed on July 21, 1973, and the case was adjourned for final arguments to July 31, 1973. On that day two applications of the tenant-petitioner came up before the learned Rent Controller. The request in one application was for the Rent Controller to inspect the premises in question himself. The Rent Controller declined that request. In the second application it was stated that the tenant had been misled by the procedure followed by the Rent Controller, and he bad, therefore, not led any evidence on issue No. 2. A prayer was, therefore, made for being permitted to lead additional evidence on issue No. 2. The details of the evidence sought to be produced were also given in the application According to those details the tenant petitioner wanted to examine an handwriting expert with regard to his alleged signatures on the rent note and the Clerk of the Punjab Electricity Supply Office, Moga, with the file of the electric connection pertaining to the property in dispute in the name of the tenant In addition he prayed for lease to produce himself as his own witness and to produce copies of the property-tax assessments, etc.
(2.) In his order, dated August 2, 1973, Mr. A.S. Sodhi, Rent Controller, Moga, has given a faithful account of the submissions made by the counsel for the tenant about his having been inadvertently led into the wrong procedure on account of the assurance given by the earlier Rent Controller to permit him to lead evidence on issue No. 2 after the case of the landlord was closed. The prayer in the application was disposed of by the learned Rent Controller in the following words : "I am of the opinion that the rent note on which the alleged signatures of the respondent have been denied is a material document for examination since the respondent has denied his signatures. In fairness he may, therefore, be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal to show that the signatures are not his. I, therefore, allow this application for producing evidence partly and permit the respondent to examine an expert regarding the alleged signatures on the rent note subject to payment of Rs. 151 as costs." The case was then adjourned for additional evidence of the tenant to September 11, 1973. It was in the intervening period that this petition for revision of the above-mentioned order of the Rent Controller was filed in this Court on August 18, 1973. Passing of the final order was stayed by the Motion Bench at the time of admitting this petition on August 30, 1973. Trial Court records having been sent for under the order of Tuli, J. dated October 15, 1973 practically no further proceedings have taken place before the Rent Controller.
(3.) The admitted facts of the case are so eloquent that it needs no discussion to hold that the procedure followed by the Rent Controller in this case in the matter of recording evidence of the parties is contrary to law. The tenant petitioner could not have been called upon to commence his evidence fill the landlord petitioner had closed his evidence in the affirmative. Even if by some arrangement the tenant was directed or allowed to produce his witnesses who happened to be present before the Rent Controller on July 20, 1972, the statement of the tenant himself on issues of which the burden was on the landlord should not at all have been recorded on that day unless the tenant wanted to do so. From the facts stated in the application and the arguments made before the Rent Controller (which base been incorporated in the order of the Rent Controller, which have not been denied on facts by the other side), it is apparent that the tenant-petitioner was misled into this unusual procedure and it was on account of the said misunderstanding that his counsel made a statement closing his evidence after the recording of the statements of two witnesses. It is unfortunate that a new Rent Controller having come to preside over the Court, seriousness of the matter was not appreciated and the application of the tenant-petitioner was rejected probably with a view to expedite the disposal of the case. As it usually happens in such cases, the zeal to dispose of the case early has resulted in its having gone into the cold storage tor about two years as a result of the filing of this revision petition. The tenant-petitioner is not completely without blame, inasmuch as he agreed or succumbed to the offer to produce his evidence before recording the statements of the witnesses of the landlord, in any case his counsel should not have made and signed the statement closing his evidence, but should have incorporated the assurance given by the Rent Controller in his statement or otherwise, as he was legally entitled to reserve his right to produce evidence in rebuttal of the statements of the landlord's witnesses. From which ever angle the order is looked at, there is no doubt that the Rent Controller has acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of his jurisdiction in refusing the tenant-petitioner any opportunity at all to rebut the evidence of the landlord on the main issue involved in the case.;