IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.78/2015 Reserved on:22.05.2025 Date of Decision: 27th May, 2025 Parkash Chand ....Petitioner Versus Ajay Sharma & Anr. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Gupta and Ms. Meera Devi, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 28.05.2015, whereby an application filed on behalf of the son of the present petitioner before the learned Rent Controller for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the petition and record. 3. The petitioner, in the case at hand, is the tenant in a landlord tenant dispute under the Rent Control act. After a protracted trial before the learned Rent Controller, eviction of the petitioner was ordered. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner had filed a reply to the eviction petition, affidavit 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 in his examination-in-chief and had been cross-examined at length before the learned Rent Controller. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, an appeal against the eviction was preferred by the present petitioner/tenant. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 32 Rule 15 read with Section 151 of the CPC was filed by the son of the present petitioner. In the same, it was averred that the petitioner/tenant was not capable to protect his interest, as he has been suffering from a mental ailment, for which he has been treated in IGMC Shimla PGIMER Chandigarh as well as in a private hospital in the Department of Psychiatri. Post completion of pleadings in the said application, an order dated 16.12.2014 was passed by the Appellate Authority. Relevant extract whereof is being reproduced hereinbelow:- “Along with the application, the applicant has also annexed the documents regarding the treatment of Parkash Chand in IGMC, in PGI Chandigarh as well as in a private hospital. Considering the above documents as well as the averments made by the applicant in the application, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to order for an inquiry by the learned trial Court into the fact whether the appellant/ tenant Parkash Chand was unable of protecting his interest on account of any mental infirmity. Consequently, the present application is allowed. The application along with its supporting documents is ordered to be sent to the learned trial Court with a direction to hold inquiry into the allegations as contained in the application as per the provisions of Order 32 Rule 15 of the CPC.” 5. Subsequent to the aforesaid, the matter was listed before the learned Rent Controller on 30.12.2014, 09.01.2015, 18.02.2015, 24.02.2015, 02.03.2015, 05.03.2015, 10.03.2015 3 and 13.03.2015. On 13.03.2015, the right of the present petitioner to lead evidence was closed. Feeling aggrieved of the same, especially the way and manner in which the inquiry had been conducted whereby extremely short dates were being granted for producing evidence, the present petitioner had preferred a Civil Revision bearing No.28 of 2015, which was decided on 02.04.2015. 6. After noticing the zimni orders with effect from 30.12.2014 to 13.03.2015, a co-ordinate bench of this Court agreed with the contention of the petitioner that indeed the matter for recording of evidence before the learned Rent Controller was being listed after short intervals. Besides the aforesaid the court observed, no fault could be found with the petitioner qua producing his evidence on the dates when the matter was listed. In the said backdrop, impugned order dated 13.03.2015, whereby the right of the petitioner to lead evidence had been closed was quashed and the following was ordered:- “The parties through their counsel shall appear before the learned Rent Controller, Court No. (II), Shimla on 10.4.2015, who shall make all endeavours to record the evidence as expeditiously as possible and shall dispose of the case in no event later than 31.5.2015” 7. Subsequent to the aforesaid, the matter was taken up by the learned Rent Controller on 10.04.2015. What transpired thereafter before the Rent Controller is evident from the relevant extract of order dated 23.05.2015. “As per directions of Hon'ble High Court of HP, case file was taken up on 10.04.2015 and all endeavours and efforts were made to record remaining evidence of applicant but all in vain. Record shows that from 4 10.04.2015 remaining witnesses of the applicant were ordered to be served through ordinary as well as dasti processes for 21.04.2015, on which date processes were not received back. On 21.04.2015 similar order was passed and case was adjourned for 01.05.2015. Again no witnesses were present on that date. On 01.05.2015 again dasti as well as ordinary processes were ordered to be issued to A.Ws for 11.05.2015. On 11.05.2015 it was reported that dasti summons were not taken and ordinary summons were not received back and case was adjourned for 19.05.2015 for A.Ws to served through ordinary as well as dasti summons. On 19.05.2015 no A.Ws were present and it was reported that dasti summons were not collected by party and ordinary summons were not received back. Today also, no A.Ws are present and as per report dasti summons not taken. After receiving the file from case Hon'ble High Court of HP, court has made every effort to summon and procure presence of witnesses of applicant but applicant has failed to take dasti summons and get the service effected on his witnesses. Since the matter is to be disposed of by 31.05.2015 and time is also to be granted to other party to lead their evidence hence prayer made by vice counsel appearing for applicant is rejected. Be listed for evidence of the respondent on 26.05.2015. Steps be taken today itself.” 8. Thereafter on 26.05.2015, the respondent before this Court tendered documents in evidence and closed evidence on behalf of the respondent. The matter was listed next on 27.05.2015 for final arguments on the application. However, on the said date, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed for leading additional evidence. Reply thereto was directed to be filed on 28.05.2015. A reply was filed. On 28.05.2015, the application for additional evidence was dismissed by virtue of the impugned order assailed herein. 9. The hand written application filed for leading additional evidence was prepared and filed on 27.05.2015. The same had been filed by the son of the petitioner, along with the same no documents had been filed. In the application, it is averred that about 5 days prior to the filing of the application, the 5 petitioner/tenant had been admitted in Tanda Medical College for treatment. Therein he is stated to have been treated by one Dr. Sukhjeet from the Psychiatric Department of Tanda Medical College. On account of these developments/subsequent events, a prayer has been made to summon the treatment record of the petitioner as well as Dr. Sukhjeet Singh from the Psychiatric Department, Tanda Medical College, in order to ascertain the condition (mental health) of the petitioner. 10. In response to the present application, a reply was filed by the present respondent No.1, wherein the conduct of the present petitioner in leading evidence post passing of judgment dated 02.04.2015 in CR No.28 of 2015, titled Prakash Chand & Anr. Vs. Ajay Sharma has been made. In this respect, whatever has been stated in order dated 23.05.2015, which has been reproduced supra has been mentioned. 11. Other than the aforesaid, it is submitted in the response that for the non-production of the witness now sought to be produced, no valid and sufficient reasons have been mentioned in the application, as to why the said witness could not be examined while the evidence of the petitioner was going on. On merits it was submitted that two doctors stand examined by the present petitioner and they have not supported the case of the present petitioner and therefore, the present application has been filed. It is further submitted that the whole endeavour in moving this application is to protract the litigation inter se the parties. 6 12. The sole contention of the petitioner is that while passing the impugned order, no valid cogent reasons have been assigned for disallowing of the application filed for leading additional evidence on behalf of the petitioner. Per contra it is submitted that the impugned order does disclose reasons for rejection. It is further submitted that the scope and ambit of the inquiry to be conducted has clearly been laid down by the First Appellate Authority on 16.12.2024 specifically para 11 and 12 thereof (reproduced supra). The application moved does not specifically mention the date on which the petitioner was admitted to the Tanda Medical College for treatment. The application was filed on 27.05.2015. Application only states that about five days ago the petitioner was admitted in the hospital. The same takes it to a day prior to the closing of the evidence of the petitioner i.e order dated 23.05.2015. 13. Other than the aforesaid, it is submitted that two witnesses (Doctors) stand examined on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller. They have not supported the case of the petitioner and therefore, the present application has been filed for filling lacunas, in the case at hand. The said application is not bona fide. 14. The terms of reference of the inquiry to be conducted by the learned Rent Controller, in the case at hand, had been laid down in order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court (relevant extract whereof has been reproduced supra). As per the same, inquiry was to be conducted on the basis of 7 the allegations as contained in the application, documents appended along with application filed under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC i.e. treatment record of the petitioner in IGMC, in PGIMER Chandigarh as well as in a private hospital. Sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in this respect had been afforded to the applicant. Despite having availed numerous opportunities the applicant/petitioner failed to produce evidence, therefore, evidence was closed vide order dated 23.05.2015. 15. After 10.04.2015, till the passing of the impugned order all possible assistance was offered by the Court below for recording of evidence on behalf of the petitioner. However, no evidence was recorded on behalf of the petitioner as is evident from the relevant extract of order dated 23.05.2015 reproduced supra. The casual, cavalier manner of the son of the present petitioner in getting evidence recorded has appropriately been summed up by the rent controller in order dated 23.05.2015. The same gains significance when examined in the context of the timeline fixed by the High Court in judgment dated 02.04.2015 in CR No.28 of 2015, titled Prakash Chand & Anr. Vs. Ajay Sharma. The aforesaid timeline was fixed at the instance of the son of the present petitioner. No reason has been placed on record of the rent controller as to why on each occasion when dasti summons were granted by the rent controller the same were not taken by the son of the petitioner 8 for ensuring service of the witnesses and their presence before the court. 16. Since the scope and ambit of the inquiry in terms of order dated 16.12.2024 was only limited to the allegations as contained in the application, treatment record appended along with Application under Order 32 Rule 15 and in terms of judgment dated 02.04.2015 passed in CR No.28 of 2015, the inquiry was to be concluded within the time frame fixed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court, therefore, refusal of the trial Court qua permission sought to lead additional evidence by the petitioner was rightly turned down on the two accounts/reasons mentioned in the impugned order. The impugned order does not lack reasons and/or objectivity as from the established facts the learned Rent Controller while passing the impugned order derived correct conclusions. 17. Section 24(5) of the Rent Act empowers the High Court to call for and examine the records relating to any order or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings either on application of aggrieved party or on its own motion. 18. The application under consideration, in the case at hand, has been filed by none else but the son of the present petitioner. The same does not appear to be bona fide. Along with the same no documentary evidence (record pertaining to the alleged ongoing treatment of the petitioner) has been placed on record. The applicant being the son of the petitioner 9 definitely had access to the ongoing treatment. One of the reasons for permitting additional evidence to be brought on record is that same should be relevant and material for determination of the issues (See 1987 (1) SCC 227, titled Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil VS. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi , Union of India v. K.V. Lakshman, (2016) 13 SCC 124 ). In the absence of the same not being on record, relevance thereof cannot be determined. 19. Other than the aforesaid no specific date is mentioned in the application, as to when the petitioner was admitted to the Tanda Medical College for treatment. Definitely the applicant knows, when his father was admitted. The same is relevant in order to establish that the undisclosed medical treatment sought to be placed on record as additional evidence is fresh evidence, which has come into existence post-closing of evidence on behalf of the applicant/petitioner. Evidence of the petitioner was closed on 23.05.2015. Specifying the actual date as to when the petitioner was admitted to hospital would only have substantiated the fact that the petitioner was not in a position to adduce the additional evidence, while his witnesses were being examined. Moreover, whether the representations made in the application are factually accurate and sufficient could have been made out by appending the record pertaining to the alleged ongoing treatment of the petitioner. 10 20. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 27th May, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)