Mr. Augustine George Masih, J.: (Oral) - Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 02.01.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla, exercising the powers of Rent Controller, whereby, an application for submitting supplementary affidavit in support of the affidavit submitted in examination-in-chief has been allowed.

2. It has been asserted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision under the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC) for tendering the supplementary affidavit when the affidavit in examination-in-chief has already been tendered. Counsel for the petitioner, in support of this contention, has relied upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mohammed Abdul Ahmad Vs. Mohammed Abdul Gafoor @ Ahmed & another, 2013 (3) Civil Court Cases 244 (AP) and the judgment of this Court in Chander Bhusan Anand Vs. Devinder Kumar Singla, 2010 (1) Rent Law Reporter 23. He, thus, contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has submitted that the strict provisions of the CPC is not applicable to the proceedings under the Rent Act, in fact, the Rent Controller can adopt any procedure which will lead to the expeditious decision provided the procedure adopted is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Vijay Kumar & others Vs. Durga Ashram Charitable Trust etc., 2002 (2) Rent Law Reporter 306.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the impugned order.

5. It is not in dispute that the affidavit dated 20.09.2013 in examination-in-chief has been tendered and at that stage, an application alongwith an affidavit was submitted pointing out therein that the petitioner-landlord has sought eviction of the respondenttenant on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of his son Mohd. Mushtaq as he was idle and after the filing of the affidavit in examination-in-chief, it has come to his knowledge that the son of the petitioner-landlord is running a shop at Talian Bazar, Malerkotla in the name and style of Tamanna Bangles and General Store. On the basis of the said affidavit and keeping in view the interest of justice, the Rent Controller has proceeded to accept the supplementary affidavit as has been filed by the respondent-tenant as it goes to the root of the dispute. It is not in dispute that the cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent has not yet started. Apart from the tendering of the affidavit in examination-in-chief of the respondent-tenant, another witness has tendered affidavit in support of his examination-in-chief but no cross-examination has started. Accordingly, the Court has rightly proceeded to permit the tender of supplementary affidavit as it is in the interest of justice which is paramount especially when it is required to do justice between the parties and no strict procedure of the CPC is applicable to proceedings under the Rent Act.

6. It is held by this Court in Vijay Kumar’s case (supra) in paras 9 and 10 which read as follows:

9. I am of the considered opinion that these observations are of no assistance to the petitioners. Merely because the Appellate Authority has mentioned that Order 41 Rule 33 CPC authorises the Appellate Court to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed, would not render the findings of the Appellate Authority either perverse or arbitrary. The Division Bench in Raghu Nath Jalota’s case (supra) was considering the powers under Section 15 of the Rent Act and the powers of the. Appellate Court for remanding the case as contemplated under Order 41 Rules 23 and 25 of the CPC. After examining the entire history of the Rent legislation, the Division Bench observed as follows:-

“7. From the aforementioned history and the provisions o