JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide which the cross-examination of the respondent Jai Parkash is treated as Nil as well as impugned order dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide which the application dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure P-15) filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 08.10.2025 has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could not cross-examine the respondent-landlord since his counsel Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate was under treatment with respect to problem in lower back and for the said purpose, the petitioner has referred to medical certificate dated 05.01.2025 from a private hospital. It is submitted that the petitioner be granted one opportunity to cross-examine the said respondent-landlord.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order deserves to be upheld and the present petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

4. The respondent-landlord had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the present petitioner from the shop in question on 22.12.2021. The eviction was sought on various grounds including the ground of personal necessity as well as arrears of the rent.

5. It is not in dispute that on 29.11.2024, the present petitioner had moved an application for seeking permission to cross-examine the respondent-landlord in view of the additional evidence produced by the respondent-landlord and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2024. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

.............Although it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no need for any further cross-examination of the petitioner as only documents have been tendered into evidence, but if applicant/respondent is not allowed to cross-examine the petitioner on the documents tendered into additional evidence, it would tantamount to throwing away the case of applicant/respondent without even affording him an opportunity to rebut the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner. So in the interest of justice, present application is allowed and only one effective opportunity is granted to the respondent to re-cross-examine the petitioner on the documents tendered by the petitioner in additional evidence. For re-cross-examination of the petitioner, the case stands adjourned to 08.01.2025.

Pronounced in open Court;

Dated: 18.12.2024.

(Preeti Sukhija)

Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.),

Ludhiana. UID No.PB0276'

A perusal of the above order would show that the Rent Controller had granted only one effective opportunity to the present petitioner to re-cross-examine the respondent with respect to the documents tendered and a specific date i.e. 08.01.2025 was given. It would be relevant to note that the said case was argued on behalf of the present petitioner by Sh.Anurag Sharma, Advocate. It would further be relevant to note that the order dated 18.12.2024 has not been challenged any further and thus, only one opportunity was required to be granted to the petitioner and that to for 08.01.2025. On 08.01.2025, although the respondent-landlord was present for cross-examination but the same was not done and thus, in view of the order dated 18.12.2024, opportunity to cross-examine with respect to additional documents was treated as Nil. There is nothing on record to suggest that on 08.01.2025, it was stated before the trial Court that there was any medical problem with the counsel as it was only stated that the counsel was not available.

6. The application filed for recalling of the order dated 08.01.2025 was dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2025 by observing that on 18