- (1.) Pritam Chand, Parkash Dev and Sita Ram petitioners are respondents in eviction proceedings under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (III of 1949) pending in the Court of Rent Controller, Nabha vide orders dated 4th August, 1976, the learned Rent Controller Nabha closed the Evidence of the present petitioners who are respondents before him except for the examination of the party and Ram Lal. The petitioners felt aggrieved by that order and have come in revision against that order.
(2.) Shri Rajinder Krishan Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. admitted that the petitioners were allowed 5 opportunities by the Rent Controller to produce their evidence. On 27-5-1976, according to the learned counsel one witness on behalf of Pritam Chand and others was examined. The only other witness, namely, Ram Lal who on that day could not be examined was bound down for the next date and the petitioners were directed to produce their entire evidence on the subsequent date, that is, 4th August, 1976. The order dated 4th August, 1976 reads as under :- "Ram Lal has moved an application that he wants to visit Naina Devi festival for offering prayers. If was ordered on 27-5-1976 that the respondent should produce his entire evidence. Now sufficient opportunities have been given to the respondent to produce his evidence. Therefore, I close the evidence of the respondent except the statement of Ram Lal and the respondent. Counsel for the respondent requested that Ram Lal may be summoned through PF He be summoned on P. F. through Avtar Singh P.S. for 18-8-1976 P.F. be filed today."
(3.) Shri Rajinder Krishen Aggarwal learned counsel for the petitioners, asserted that the evidence of the petitioners has been unnecessarily closed by the learned Rent Controller in spite of the fact that the witnesses were being summoned with the assistance of the Court. The impugned order does not show this fact nor does it contain any request on behalf of the petitioners before Rent Controller that the assistance of the Court be provided in summoning of these witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioners agrees that even on 27-5-76 on such representation was made. In view of these circumstances when the party itself does not insist for the assistance of the Court and undertakes to produce its entire evidence on a particular date and when it fails to abide by the commitment it can not be heard to say that the Court did not give proper opportunities to it. The impugned order shows that sufficient opportunities had been given to the respondent-petitioners to produce the evidence. Only one witness Ram Lal who was bound down had made a request for accommodation which was allowed by the Rent Controller. Time was also allowed to the petitioners to examine themselves. From the impugned order I find that this Rent application is pending in the Court since 4-12-1973. In such old cases the parties which adopt dilatory tactics do not deserve to be much accommodated.;