AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This order shall dispose of two revision petitions namely, CR Nos. 1900 and 1919 of 2011 as common question of law and fact is involved in these revision petitions.
The Petitioner is landlord, who had filed two petitions u/s 13-A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short ''the Act'') for seeking eviction of the tenants on the ground of personal necessity. The landlord filed an application for leading additional evidence, which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 17.12.2010. The operative part of the order is as under:
It is made clear that only one opportunity would be given to the Petitioner for the purpose of producing and proving the documents in additional evidence
The opportunity was granted subject to payment of Rs. 1000/- as costs. On the next date of hearing when the matter was placed before the other Court after transfer, a request was made by the landlord for granting more time to bring on record the documents, for which, opportunity was granted by the Rent Controller on 17.12.2010. However, the permission sought, was declined by the learned Rent Controller vide its impugned order dated 17.02.2011 on the ground that only single opportunity was granted by the Court, which cannot be further extended.
Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that though the Petitioner could not bring the documents on record within the time granted by the learned Court below, but this Court by compensating the Respondent with some costs, can still grant one more opportunity.
I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.
The submission made by counsel for the Petitioner is of no use in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 17.12.2010 was peremptory, according to which, only single opportunity was granted to the landlord for the purpose of leading his evidence and for that matter, no error is committed by the learned Rent Controller in declining the request of the Petitioner for granting further time for the purpose of bringing that document on record. It is made clear that where there is a peremptory order passed by the Court, it has to be followed strictly, otherwise there would be no sanctity attached to the peremptory order passed by the Courts, if that has to be changed on the asking of the parties, who would offer more costs for that purpose.
In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petitions and as such, the same are dismissed.