The court affirmed that procedural timeliness is crucial, and new evidence cannot be admitted after evidence closure unless exceptional circumstances justify it.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been held by video conferencing.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-07 (Central District) in Suit No.166/2020, titled M/s. Oriental Carbon & Chemicals Ltd. v. M/s. LPR Co. P. Ltd., dismissing the application of the petitioner herein for leading additional evidence of one Mr.Naresh Kumar Ladar, Architect, and for summoning him as a witness.

3. The subject suit was filed by the respondent herein as a tenant in the property, being first and second floor of Publicis House, 1-2, Aram Bagh, Community Centre, Panchkuian Road, New Delhi-110055, praying for the following prayers:

"A. Pass a decree of recovery against the Defendant and in favour of the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs.51,64,041/- (Rupees Fifty One Lacs Sixty Four Thousand and Forty One only).

B. Pass a decree against the Defendant and in favour of the Plaintiff directing the Defendant to pay the above sum of Rs.51,64,041/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of the present suit till its realization thereof.

C. Pass a decree of decree of recovery against the Defendant and in favour of the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs.23,008/- (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand and Eight only) per month from the date of suit and till the date the Plaintiff has to bear the expenses of Security Guard.

D. Pass a decree of mandatory injunction against the Defendant directing the Defendant to take over the possession of the suit premises from the Plaintiff i.e. First Floor and Second Floor of Publicis House situated at 1-2 Aram Bagh Community Centre, Panchkuian Road, New Delhi-110055 having super area of 2676 square feet respectively at each floor.

E. Award costs of the suit in favour of the Plaintiff."

4. It was the grievance of the respondent that the petitioner/landlord was not accepting the surrender of the leased premises and was not refunding the security amount furnished by the respondent at the time of lease.

5. Upon filing of the suit the respondent again offered the possession of the tenanted premises to the petitioner, however, the petitioner stoutly refused to accept the same. Finally, by an order dated 03.11.2018, the learned Trial Court allowed the respondent to deposit the keys of the tenanted premises with the learned Trial Court, granting liberty to the petitioner herein to take the same through an authorized person.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the keys were taken from the learned Trial Court on 17.11.2018.

7. Vide order dated 08.07.2019, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is liable to bear expenses in restoring the suit property back to the state in which it was leased out to the plaintiff'? OPD

2. Whether the defendant is entitled to deduct the money that it may be required to spend in bringing the suit property back to its original habitable condition from the dilapidated condition? OPD

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of recovery of Rs.5I,64,041/-? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest on the said amount? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP

5. Relief."

8. The parties thereafter led their evidence and the same was closed vide order dated 21.10.2019.

9. On the same date, the petitioner herein had filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 praying for the appointment of an Expert Witness to visit the tenanted premises and make a report for an estimate of repairs and finishing of the tenanted premises. Though the learned Trial Court took note of the filing of the said application in its order dated 21.10.2019, the evidence of the petitioner was closed on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order reads as under:

"21.10.2019

Present Sh. Rohit Gandhi, counsel for plaintiff.

Ld. Counsel for defendant.