Court held that a request to recall witnesses is a discretion of the court and not a right of the parties, especially to avoid delays in proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

Present revision petition has been filed by the tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.09.2023 (Annexure P-14) passed by the Rent Controller, Sangrur, vide which the application dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P-12) filed by the petitioner for recalling the witnesses of the landlord/respondent for further cross-examination has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the respondent-landlord, in a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as '1949 Act'), has stated that he is not occupying any other building in the urban area of Sangrur except the shop in dispute. It is further submitted that it was a specific case of the petitioner in the written statement, more so, in para 3-C to the effect that there are two other shops in the ownership of the respondent-landlord which were let out to different persons. It is submitted that the said aspect was denied in the replication and thereafter, the petitioner had moved an application for amendment to insert additional objection No.7 on the aspect that the respondent-landlord had got the possession of one of the two shops vacated from the tenant, namely, Dinesh Kumar alias Dessa and had rented out the same to one Lovepreet, son of Rajinder Kumar. It is further submitted that the said amendment was allowed and thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application dated 27.04.2023 for recalling all the witnesses PW-1 to PW-4, for the purpose of re-cross examination of PW-1 to PW-3 and for the purpose of cross-examination of PW-4 . It is stated that the cross-examination of the said witnesses became necessary in view of the amendment having been allowed, however, the Rent Controller vide the impugned order has dismissed the said application illegally and has further submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner for recalling of the witnesses deserves to be allowed.

3. It is stated that since PW-4 has been given up by the respondent, thus, at the stage of notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioner had restricted his prayer for further cross-examination of PW-1 to PW-3 only. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.12.2016 titled as ' Shukla Kohli Vs. M/s Neelam Traders ' in CR-8380-2016 as well as the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 20.07.2012 titled as ' Kaptan Singh Vs. Kulbir Singh ', in CR-6648-2010.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has submitted that the petitioner has been filing one application after other only to delay the proceedings. It is further submitted that in the eviction petition which was filed in the year 2020 as well as in the replication which was filed on 02.07.2021, it has been specially stated by the respondentlandlord that the respondent-landlord is not the owner of any other shop other than the shop in question. It is further submitted that no document has been produced by the petitioner to even remotely show that the respondent is the owner of other shops and that even in the original reply dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure P-2), no reference to any shops number or even the place where they are situated has been mentioned. It is submitted that it has not even been stated that the said two shops are in the same municipal area as the shop in question.

5. It