AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawad Rahim
Landlords''s petition against the dismissal of application to lead further evidence.
Petition is admitted and taken up for final disposal.
It is not in dispute the petitioners four in number joined in a legal action against the respondent seeking his eviction on the premise they are the co-owners and under them, he is a tenant The vinkulum juris of landlord and tenant was not resisted by the respondent consequent to which the issue confronting the trial Court is whether the petitioners require the premises for own use and occupation
The respondent/tenant has resisted the eviction action on the plea there is no bonafide in their clain. The ground urged is imaginary to oust him unjustifiably. He denied petitioners are in need of the premises or the desire is honest Based on material propositions in the pleadings, parties appeared to have lead their evidence in which one of the petitioners viz., petitioner No.1 has tendered evidence as PW1 while the respondent/tenant has also deposed. When the ease was posted for arguments, the petitioners filed application to permit examination of the fourth petitioner as the witness to substantiate their claim in the petition. In other words, their plea is the premises is required for own use and accusation and to substantiate their requirement, evidence of fourth petitioner is essential.
The learned trial Judge accepted the grounds urged by the tenant and rejected the application on the plea the petitioners are not diligent It was held that the petitioners have approached the Court for a relief at a belated stage and the intention is to procrastinate the proceedings.
The observation so made by the learned trial Judge was certainly unwarranted as the petitioners were to lose if there was any delay and not the respondents. Since they ere the landlords, It was in their interest if the petition was disposed of expeditiously. Besides, it is seen the eviction action commenced only in the year 2011 and within a matter of few months fortunately the matter has reached the stage of argument That (sic) to their benefit to show that they have diligently prosecuted the proceedings. In this scanario, it is unjust to hold that the plea was to procrastinate the proceeding. The order disentitling the fourth petitioner to lead evidence is certainly unsustainable. The other ground why the learned trial judge has declined relief is what has been elicited in the cross examination by the respondent would be negated if further evidence is lead. This approach is not proper for the reason any material brought on record in the evidence has to stand the tact of cross examination and merely because it could be annulled by reexamination there is no reason to disallow reexamination which is a right engrafted in the Evidence Act itself. Besides when the person whom they want to examine is already in the perty array as the fourth petitioner and the averment is premises is required for his own use and occupation, he has right to tender evidence.
For these reasons the impugned order is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner is allowed of course on cost of Rs.500/- to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent/tenant Fourth petitioner is permitted to tender evidence and respondent shall be granted an opportunity to examine him and if need be, to lead additional evidence if he so desires. With this observation, the petition is disposed of.
The cost shall be paid before the trial before the benefit of this order is given to them.