An error in the placing of the onus of proof does not necessarily vitiate the decision of the trial court if the decision is not influenced by the error.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition against, the order of the Additional District Judge- Delhi dismissing the suit of the petitioner filed under S. 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the case of the petitioner was that it was in possession of the premises situate at 2nd floor of House No. 4/ 2. Roop Nagar. Delhi. The monthly rent was stated to be Rs. 300 - According to the petitioner, the respondent-landlords had earlier taken proceedings to evict the tenant but without success. The case of the petitioner was that some time between 4th and 26th Feb. 1978. in the absence of the employees, agents and officers of the petitioner-company, the respondents broke open the locks and took illegal and forcible possession of the tenanted premises. A complaint was lodged with the Police on 26th Feb. . 1978. The prayer of the petitioner was that the respondents had dispossessed the petitioner without its consent and a decree for possession of the entire second floor premises of the said house should be passed in favour of the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE defence of the respondents was that the petitioner voluntarily had handed over vacant possession of the premises in question on 31st Jan. 1978. White it was admitted that there was litigation between the parties with regard to the said premises, in the written statement it was alleged that a eompromise was reached between the. parties through the good offices of one Shri Sat Narain and it was, in pursuance thereto that vacant possession of the premises was handed over on 31st Jan. 1978.

( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, two issues were framed by the trial court. They were as under :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the premises in dispute on the allegations made in the plaint? OPP

2. Relief.

( 5 ) IT appears that the petitioner filed an application, inter alia, contending that the onus of issue No. 1 had been wrongly placed. The submission of the petitioner was that the onus of this issue should have been on the respondents. Vide order dated 24th April, 1979 this application was dismissed. The matter rested there. No revision was filed against the said order.

( 6 ) BOTH the parties led evidence, both oral and documentary. The Additional District Judge, vide his order dated 3rd Feb. 1982, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to any portion of the premises. The Additional District Judge accepted the defence of the respondents. The present revision petition has been Filed against the aforesaid decision.

( 7 ) THE first contention of Shri Marwaha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Additional District Judge erred in referring to and relying on the testimony of D. W. 7 A. S. P. Sri Ram. It was submitted by the learned counsel that his cross-examination had not been completed and, therefore, his evidence should not have been referred to. 1 find there is no merit in this contention. The evidence of D. W. 7 was first recorded on 30th Oct. 1980. During the course of his cross-examination he was directed to bring the file concerning the case which had been investigated by him. It may here be noted that D. W. 7 had carried out the investigation pursuant to the First Information Report which had been lodged with the police station by the petitioner on 26th Feb. 1978 alleging illegal dispossession of the petitioner by the respondents. D. W. 7 then entered the witness box on 9th Mar. 1981. His cross-examination was concluded on that day. There is nothing to indicate that any right was reserved to cross-examine the said witness at a later date. The evidence of the said witness was recorded in toto and the counsel for the petitioner had full opportunity to cross-examine him. His evidence could, therefore, not be excluded by the learned Additional District Judge.

( 8 ) WHILE relying upon S. 109 of the Evidence Act, the next contention of Shri Marwaha was that onus of proof of issue No. 1 had been wrongly placed o