( 2025:HHC:8240 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 16 of 2025 Date of decision: 27th March, 2025 Suman Gupta …Petitioner. Versus Rehman …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner. Mr. Naresh Sharma, Advocate. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has approached this Court against the closure of evidence of petitioner by the Rent Controller, Shimla H.P. vide order dated 30th December, 2024 passed in Rent Petition No. 156 of 2020, titled Suman Gupta vs. Rehman. 2 It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner Suman Gupta is 82 years old and her husband, during his lifetime, being General Power of Attorney of the petitioner, was looking after the cases and after his death, petitioner is pursuing the case. 3 By referring the order sheets, placed on record, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that for the first time, the case was listed for recording the statement of petitioner’s witnesses on 27.3.2023. ( 2025:HHC:8240 ) However, on 18th October, 2023 an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was filed which was decided on 15th July, 2024. Thereafter, matter before the Rent Controller was listed for recording the evidence of landlord on 4th September, 2024. 4 It has been submitted that on 4th September, 2024, Vikas Mahajan, son of petitioner being holder of General Power of Attorney of petitioner was present in Court and he had tendered evidence in his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit. However, his evidence could not be completed because learned counsel for respondent had prayed for deferring the cross-examination which was allowed by Court and matter was adjourned for 4th December, 2024. 5 On 4th December, 2024, neither Vikas Mahajan nor Suman Gupta i.e. petitioner could attend the Court because of the marriage in the family of the daughter of Vikas Mahajan who had come to India from Germany on the said date. On that day, despite making the request on behalf of petitioner to adjourn the matter, the evidence of petitioner was closed. 6 It has been further submitted that on 30th December, 2024, petitioner could not attend the Court due to high fever. On that day, despite making the request on behalf of petitioner to adjourn the matter, the evidence of petitioner was closed. 7 It has been submitted that there was no intention of the petitioner to linger on the matter unnecessarily by not producing the 2 ( 2025:HHC:8240 ) evidence and petitioner will suffer for delay in the matter whereas respondent/tenant is not going to suffer because of pendency of matter. 8 It has been submitted that now case has been listed for recording the evidence of respondent on 5th April, 2025. 9 In aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioner may be given at least one opportunity as it has been submitted and undertaken by the petitioner to produce all witnesses to be examined on behalf of petitioner on the date already fixed before the Rent Controller i.e. on 5.4.2025. 10 No notice is being issued to respondent as for the explanation rendered on behalf of petitioner, petition is being allowed and therefore, it appears that in case of summoning the respondent in this Court and compel him to engage the lawyer and to join the proceedings here, it would be unnecessary harassment of respondent. 11 With aforesaid observations, order dated 30th December, 2024 passed by the Rent Controller is modified to the extent that petitioner/landlord shall produce her all witnesses on 5th April, 2025 and on that day, they shall be examined. No adjournment for examining the witnesses shall be granted on request of petitioner. However, in case respondent seeks time to cross-examine them, then the Rent Controller shall proceed further in accordance with law without being influenced grant of one opportunity by this Court to examine the witnesses of petitioner and he may adjourn the matter for examining or cross- 3 ( 2025:HHC:8240 ) examining the witnesses on later date, except for request made or on behalf of petitioner. 12 The aforesaid opportunity shall be subject to payment of cost of Rs.4000/- payable to the respondent on the next date before the Rent Controller. 13 Petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for the Court Assistance promptly for summoning the witness(es), if any, required to be examined by petitioner and in such eventuality also, taking into the circumstances prevailing at that time, the Rent Controller may fix any other date for examining the such witness(es). However, all other witnesses shall be examined on 5th April, 2025. 14 In case the examination is not possible for any reason including the non-availability of Rent Controller on 5th April, 2025, the witnesses shall be examined on the next date fixed by the Rent Controller for examination of witnesses but with rider that no further time shall be granted for request made by petitioner/landlord. Petition stands disposed of including all pending miscellaneous application(s) also. (Vivek Singh Thakur), 27th March, 2025 Judge. (MS) 4