AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surinder Singh, J.—Heard.
Petitioners are facing eviction from the demised premises in a rent petition filed by the respondents/land lords in case No. 63-2 of 2004 pending in the Court of learned Rent Controller (4), Shimla, H.P. on the ground of re-building/reconstructions.
Both the parties have already led their evidence in the rent petition. When the matter was pending for final arguments, an application u/s 151 of the CPC was moved for additional evidence by the petitioners-tenant for summoning the Superintendent of Police, Shimla to produce record with respect to the Police Assistance Room housed in the Gaiety Theatre building and whether it was vacated/shifted therefrom, while reconstructing the Gaiety Theatre.
Respondents-landlord offered strong resistance to the application and questioned its relevance.
After hearing the parties, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that both the parties knew their case very well. They have led their evidence and it was nowhere the case of the petitioners-tenant that the evidence sought to be led now, was not available when they led their evidence.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.
Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners-tenant submitted that the additional evidence sought to be produced was necessary for the purpose of doing complete justice between the parties and learned Rent Controller has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him which has caused material prejudice to the petitioners-landlord.
Shri Ajay Kumar learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Sh. Paras Dogar supported the impugned order.
Considering the rival contentions of the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition for the reasons that the additional evidence sought to be produced with respect to Gaiety Theatre wherein Police Assistance room was located is another building across the Mall Road located at a distance from the demised premises, regarding which the petitioners are facing eviction. Thus it is not understood how the evidence sought to be produced is relevant in this case. Therefore, the petition is superfluous hence dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any.