IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 4551 of 2009
Date of Decision : August 12, 2009
Kishan Lal and others
.....Petitioners
Versus
Surya Kant Saini and another
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate
T.P.S. MANN, J.
Order passed by Additional District Judge, Rewari on
18.7.2009 while dismissing the application of the petitioners for
appointment of Local Commissioner has been challenged by them by
filing the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
Ejectment petition filed by the respondents against Tej
Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, from the demised
property was accepted by learned Rent Controller, Rewari on October
31, 2008 and the petitioners were directed to hand over its vacant
possession to the respondents. Aggrieved of the aforementioned
order, the petitioners filed an appeal and, during its pendency, they
Civil Revision No. 4551 of 2009 -2-
submitted an application for the appointment of a Local
Commissioner so as to find out as to whether any person was residing
above the demised property or not. It was pleaded that the facts were
essential to know the existing condition of the demised property as
the Rent Controller had ordered the ejectment on the ground that
demised property had become unfit and unsafe.
While the matter was pending before the learned Rent
Controller, both the parties had examined their respective experts
regarding the condition of the demised property. The petitioners had
examined DW4 Satpal, an Engineer by profession. After going
through the testimonies of both the parties as well as their respective
experts, learned Rent Controller had passed the order of ejectment.
The plea of the petitioners that the demised property was
fit and safe for habitation/use on the ground as someone was living
above it, was very well within their knowledge when the proceedings
were pending before the learned Rent Controller. However, they did
not produce the said evidence. When the petitioners had submitted an
application before the learned Rent Controller for appointment of the
Local Commissioner, the respondents submitted their reply stating
therein that the petitioners had not mentioned the correct facts as
according to them, the petitioners had got some repair work done
during the pendency of the ejectment petition. Even an application
Civil Revision No. 4551 of 2009 -3-
was submitted by the respondents before the learned Rent Controller
after the conclusion of the evidence which was allowed on 6.8.2008.
In rebuttal thereto, the petitioners were given an opportunity to lead
their evidence but they could not furnish any plausible explanation.
Learned lower appellate Court has rightly come to a
conclusion that by moving an application for appointment of a Local
Commissioner, the petitioners want to re-open the case and also to
create the evidence, which cannot be permitted.
The impugned order passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Rewari while declining the application of the
petitioner for appointment of the Local Commissioner cannot be said
to be either perverse or suffering from any illegality or infirmity and,
thus, calls for no interference.
The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
( T.P.S. MANN )
August 12, 2009 JUDGE
satish