Amar Nath Vs Krishan Lal Arora

Paramjeet Singh, J.@mdashInstant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure P/4) passed by learned Rent Controller, Fazilka, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC for additional evidence has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner filed the application for additional evidence with regard to the fact that he is owner of the shop in question, which is reflected in the record of Municipal Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgments of this Court in Ram Niwas vs. Kalu Ram and another, 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 56 , Arpana Sharma Vs. Rajinder Sharma and Others , Ravinder Singh vs. Parkash Singh & Others, 2009 (5) R.C.R. (Civil) 249, Surender Kumar Vs. Vishal Gupta, , Partap Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and judgment of Hon''ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in Shri Roshan Lal vs. Shri Ram Shrup, 2013 (2) Civ CC 142 and contended that documentary evidence can be led at any stage, if it is necessary for just decision of the case and the same can be allowed at any time. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the delay in moving the application should not be taken for all purposes including leading of the evidence.

3. I have considered the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and of the view that they cannot be taken into consideration in the peculiar facts of this case. Here is a case where the respondent filed reply and has made categorical assertion that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. Even the ownership has been denied, so it is incumbent upon the petitioner to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant while leading evidence in affirmative. Once the petitioner was conscious of the fact that this objection had been raised, he should have led the evidence in affirmative. Now, the petitioner cannot be allowed to say said that the petitioner after exercising his due diligence could not know about this and thus, cannot be allowed to move this application at belated stage. In these circumstances, the authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are not relevant.

4. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is duty bound to rebut the receipt tendered into evidence is concerned, this Court does not intend to make any comment in this regard. However, it is settled law that any document tendered beyond the pleadings cannot be taken into considered.

5. In view of this, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Dismissed.