This oral judgment grants a final indulgent opportunity to the petitioner to record his statement in a rent eviction case following multiple defaults in evidence production, subject to payment of costs.
One final opportunity granted to appear and record statement on 17.6.2017 subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 428 of 2016.
Decided on: 17.05.2017.
Rakesh Bhardwaj ……Petitioner. Versus Pardeep Chand Giri & ors. …….Respondents.
Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 . No. For the petitioner: Mr. S.D.Gill and Ms. Sunita Bhardwaj, Advocates. For the respondents: None. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J (Oral).
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2016 passed
by learned Rent Controller, Shimla in rent petition No. 24-2 of 2015/09, whereby his evidence has been ordered to be closed. As a matter of fact, his eviction from the premises rented out to him by the respondentslandlords has been sought by filing a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. The respondents-landlords have already produced evidence in the eviction petition. It is, however, when the petitioner failed to produce the evidence despite number of opportunities granted, learned Rent Controller, proceeded to close his evidence. He approached this Court by filing CMPMO No. 332/2014 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 31.3.2015 by granting last and final opportunity to him to produce his evidence on the date which was left open to be fixed by the trial Court.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
whereby the last and final opportunity was granted to the petitioner to produce evidence. The certified copy of the judgment was produced by learned counsel representing him before learned Rent Controller on 5.5.2015, on which date, the matter was adjourned to 14.7.2015 for recording his evidence. He, however, failed to take steps. In the meanwhile, the eviction petition was also transferred to learned Rent Controller, Shimla on that day i.e. 17.11.2015, which was fixed for producing the evidence of the petitioner. The petitioner was found to have not taken any steps. The learned Rent Controller, though in view of the judgment passed by this Court should have not granted any other and further opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence, however, one last and exceptional opportunity was granted for the purpose perhaps by way of indulgence and the petition was adjourned for recording his evidence to 19.12.2015. On that day, learned Rent Controller was on leave. Steps were again not taken by the petitioner. Anyhow, the matter ultimately was adjourned to 18.10.2016 again by way of last opportunity to the petitioner to produce his evidence. On that day, the petitioner had not again taken any steps nor could he attend the Court in person and rather filed an application for seeking exemption from appearance on the ground that on account of visit of Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, it was not possible for him to attend the Court. The grounds on which the adjournment sought was neither plausible nor reasonable and as such learned Rent Controller has rightly declined the prayer for adjournment made by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has failed to take steps for producing the evidence despite last and final opportunity granted by
3
this Court and also by learned Rent Controller below. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the steps were not required to be taken as it is the petitioner who alone has to appear in the witness box and no other and further witness to be examined.
May 17, 2017, ( Dharam Chand Chaudhary ), (karan) Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted one more opportunity to produce evidence despite repeated failures to appear and evidence closing orders.
Rakesh Bhardwaj
Pardeep Chand Giri
Dharam Chand Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
