1 ( 2025:HHC:20441 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.99 of 2021 Date of Decision : 28.06.2025 Surinder Puri …… Petitioner Versus Vijay Sood ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against impugned order dated 13.01.2021, passed by learned Rent Controller, Shimla, in CMA No.756/2019, whereby, the Rent Controller has dismissed an application filed under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code by the present petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the petition and the impugned orders. 3. In nut shell, in the application filed under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, it has been alleged by the petitioner/tenant that the present respondent/landlord had agreed to sell the rented accommodation, in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:20441 ) the case at hand vide agreement to sell (Mark-Y). It is contended that the present respondent/landlord had appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and during his cross-examination, he had denied putting signatures in Circle A-1 to A-4 on an agreement to sell (Mark-Y). 4. In response filed, the present respondent/landlord contends that he had never entered into any agreement to sell. Further, he has categorically stated in the response that the petitioner/tenant would have to prove the execution of the alleged agreement to sell (Mark-Y), in accordance with law. Mere comparison of signatures on Mark-Y would not dispense with the proof of the execution of the alleged agreement. 5. The Rent Controller has agreed with the contention of the present respondent/landlord and has correctly held that the execution of agreement to sell (Mark-Y) needs to be proved by producing the attesting witnesses of the said documents. Comparison of signatures alleged to be of the present respondent/landlord on the alleged agreement to sell (Mark-Y) with the admitted/specimen signatures of the present respondent/landlord will not be of any help. 6. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana 3 ( 2025:HHC:20441 ) Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Limited and another, (2003) 3 SCC 524 and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181). 7. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 17.07.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) June 28, 2025 (KS) Judge