JUDGMENT

Vikas Suri, J.

This is a civil revision petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved against the order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala whereby the opportunity for cross-examination of PW1-Rajni Bala (landlord) was ordered to be considered as 'Nil'.

2. A perusal of the paper book shows that the respondents filed a petition seeking ejectment of the petitioners from the demised premises. In the ejectment petition, an application under Section 6 -A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was also filed claiming therein that the tenant was in arrears since 01.03.2018. During the restricted functioning of the Courts between the period from 01.04.2020 up to 10.05.2021, the matter kept being adjourned in view of numerous instructions/directions issued in view of the then prevailing situation arising due to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. Vide order dated 25.07.2022, the petitioners were directed to deposit the rent for the period w.e.f. 01.03.2018 to 28.02.2019 at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to make payment of rent. On deposit of the rent, the landlord moved an application for issuance of voucher of rent assessed earlier that was deposited by the petitioner-tenants, as respondent No. 2 (applicant therein) wanted to withdraw the same. The said application was allowed vide order dated 03.10.2022 and the case was adjourned to 16.11.2022 for evidence of the landlord at own responsibility. It was also directed that learned counsel for the Petitioners in the ejectment petition to supply copy of affidavit of the witness to the opposite counsel well in time so that cross-examination of the witness could be recorded on the same day. On the following herein, the co-landlord viz. Rani Bala daughter of late Krishan Lal deposed as PW-1 and the examination-in-chief was recorded on 16.11.2022. The matter was adjourned to 12.01.2023 for cross-examination of PW-1 Rajni Bala as well as for remaining evidence of the petitioner at own responsibility.

3. On the adjourned date, the cross-examination of the witness PW-1 Rajni Bala could not be conducted as request for adjournment for cross-examination of PW-1 was made on the ground that due to the death of uncle and aunt a week ago, the tenant Madhu Saini could not contact her counsel and therefore, the counsel was not prepared to cross-examine the witness on the said date. The request for adjournment was opposed by the witness and in view of the same, the petitioner herein sought some time to bring her counsel for cross-examination of PW-1. The said request was allowed by the trial Court. While the petitioner had gone to call her counsel, the matter was taken up and it was ordered that the cross-examination of PW-1 Rajni Bala to be considered as 'Nil'. It was recorded by the trial Court that it was the second opportunity for cross-examination and the date had been requested in very casual manner. The record further shows that the petitioner returned to the Court with another advocate who filed his fresh power of attorney on her behalf and requested a date for cross-examination of PW-1. However, it was brought to his notice that as the litigant had not returned up before the Court within 10 minutes, the order has been passed whereby cross-examination of PW-1 was treated as 'Nil'.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and with his able assistance perused the impugned order and other documents forming part of the paper-book.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the