The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of producing vital evidence to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant and the real controversy between the parties, and the court's emphasis on procedural law as an aid to justice.

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

1. This revision petition has been directed by Amarjit Singh son of Balwant Singh-tenant (herein after to be referred as "the tenant) against the impugned order dated 3.3.2001, vide which the Rent Controller has dismissed his application for additional evidence.

2. The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal, of present petition and emanating from the record is that respondent-landlord Baldev Singh son of late Inder Singh (hereinafter to be referred as "the landlord") filed an ejectment petition against Mohan Singh and Amarjit Singh tenants, invoking the provisions of section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (herein after to be referred as "the Act") on the ground of subletting.

3. Having completed all the codal formalities, the ejectment petition was fixed for arguments. Tenant Amarjit Singh, instead of arguing the main petition, filed an application for additional evidence, inter-alia, pleading that the landlord has filed the ejectment petition against him and Mohan Singh on the ground of subletting and he has not admitted him (Amarjit Singh) as tenant. Earlier, he (Amarjit Singh) alongwith other tenants filed a suit against the landlord for permanent injunction claiming themselves to be the tenants in the disputed premises. The landlord filed the written statement and admitted that Amarjit Singh was a tenant in the demised premises under the landlord. Thus, tenant Amarjit Singh moved an application for additional evidence to enable him to produce copies of plaint and written statement of earlier suit titled as "Amarjit Singh and others v. Baldev Singh and another" which were stated to have not been filed earlier inadvertently. On the basis of the aforesaid grounds, the tenant sought to produce copies of plaint and written statement in the earlier suit between the parties by way of additional evidence in the instant ejectment petition.

4. The landlord contested the prayer of the tenant and filed the reply in which it was stated that the documents sought to be produced by the tenant were already in his knowledge and were available with him. The same could not be produced at this stage, because it will prejudice the case of the landlord and will amount to re-opening of the case. That being so, the landlord prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. The Rent Controller dismissed the application for additional evidence vide impugned order dated 3.3.2001.

6. Amarjit Singh tenant did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and filed the present revision petition. That is how I am seized of the matter.

7. At the very outset, it will not be out of place to mention here that during the pendency of the present revision petition, one Asha Nand son of Bhaku Ram purchased the property in dispute and moved CM No.5533-CIl of 2003, through Shri Ashok Gupta, Advocate, which was allowed by this Court and subsequent vendee Asha Nand was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.3.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record of the case with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me. as the impugned order cannot legally be sustained, therefore, the revision petition deserves to be accepted, for the reasons mentioned here-in below.

9. As indicated earlier, the landlord has filed the ejectment petition against tenants Mohan Singh and Amarjit Singh on the ground of subletting. Meaning thereby, the landlord has denied the relationship of Amarjit Singh as his tenant. Learned counsel for Amarjit Singh tenant has produced the attested copies of the plaint and written statement sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, which would go to show that Amarjit Singh son of Balwant Singh (present petitioner) and three others filed Civil Suit No.740 of 1995 on 27.9.1995 restraining defendants (Baldev Singh landlord and Municipal Committee) from interfering in any ma