CR-4073 of 2024 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4073 of 2024 (O&M) Date of decision : November 27, 2025 Surinder Kumar Arora ...... Petitioner Versus Puneet Mahajan alias Veenu Mahajan ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA *** Present :- Mr.Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Krishan Sehjpal, Advocate for the respondent. *** HARKESH MANUJA , J (Oral) 1. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Rent Controller- cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar whereby an application preferred at the instance of the petitioner-landlord for examining handwriting expert has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stating, the petitioner-landlord while claiming himself to be the owner of the demised premises preferred an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent as well as bonafide necessity. The issues therein were framed on 19.03.2019. The same are extraced hereinbelow:- “1. Whether the rent tendered by the respondent is short and invalid? OPA ARCHANA ARORA 2025.12.03 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4073 of 2024 (O&M) 2 2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent?OPA 3. Whether the demised premises is bonafide required by the petitioner for the use and occupation of his divorced daughter Smt. Mani Arora?OPA 4.Whether respondent has already paid the future rent uptill December, 2028 ? OPR. 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 6. Whether the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts from the Court? OPR 7. Relief.” 3. The evidence of the petitioner-landlord was closed on 16.05.2022 followed by recording of evidence of respondents which later came to be closed. Thereafter an application came to be filed on behalf of the petitioner-landlord for seeking permission to examine the hand-writing expert in rebuttal to the evidence led in the form of receipts Ex.RA to Ex.RM and Ex.RN to Ex.RA/Z by respondent- tenant with respect to the advance rent paid by him to the petitioner- landlord. The said application was opposed at the instance of respondent-tenant and the same was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 18.07.2024. Hence, the present revision petition on behalf of the petitioner landlord. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book and find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-landlord. ARCHANA ARORA 2025.12.03 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4073 of 2024 (O&M) 3 5. In the present case, the eviction petition came to be preferred at the instance of the petitioner-landlord on two grounds i.e. for arrears of rent w.e.f December, 2016 to 9.12.2017 and the plea of bonafide necessity. In response, in the written statement it was pleaded by the respondent-tenant that he was not in arrears of rent as the same already stood paid in advance to the petitioner-landlord. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, Issue No.4 was framed to the following effect: “Whether respondent has already paid the future rent uptill December, 2028?OPR.” 6. A perusal of the aforesaid issue shows that the burden to prove the payment of advance/future rent was upon the respondent- tenant and in due discharge thereof, the respondent-tenant examined hand writing expert-RW-1-Sanjeev Kumar and also proved the payment receipts Ex.RA to Ex.RM and Ex. RN to Ex.RA/Z. Thus, in such circumstances, once the burden to prove the payment of advance/future rent lied upon the respondent-tenant, the petitioner- landlord was always at liberty to examine his own hand-writing expert in rebuttal to the aforementioned evidence led by the respondent- tenant. However, the learned trial Court rejected the prayer made by the petitioner-landlord for examining the hand-writing expert by recording that the said evidence should have been brought on record in affirmative. The said reasoning is unsustainable as once the burden to prove the payment of future/advance rent was upon the respondent- tenant, the petitioner-landlord was always at liberty to rebut the evidence led on the said issue by the respondent-tenant by way of ARCHANA ARORA 2025.12.03 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4073 of 2024 (O&M) 4 rebuttal as the onus qua issue No.4 shifted upon the petitioner- landlord only once the burden to prove the same was discharged by the respondent-tenant in the affirmative evidence. 7. 7. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Rent Controller is hereby set aside. The petitioner-landlord is permitted to examine his own hand-writing expert to rebut the evidence led by respondent- tenant with respect to the receipts about advance/future rent. 8. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. 9. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MAUNJA ) JUDGE November 27, 2025 archana ARCHANA ARORA 2025.12.03 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document