IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.01.2026 Navish Kumar …Petitioner Versus Govinder Singh & Ors.

…Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Pranav Handa, Advocate For the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate For respondent No.2.

***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Though no formal notice of motion has been issued, a memo of appearance has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. With the consent of learned counsels, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner herein is the respondent-tenant in an ejectment petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 by the respondents-landlords on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The said ejectment petition is pending before the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar. The present petition assails the order dated 14.01.2026 (Annexure P- 7), whereby the learned Rent Controller dismissed the petitioner’s application seeking permission to summon and examine Rajinder Singh son of late Sardar Mahan Singh in additional evidence for proving rent receipts Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

3. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises by late Sardar Mahan Singh, father of the respondents. After his demise, the respondents, being his Class-I legal heirs, initiated eviction proceedings alleging that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from January, 2013 to April, 2019.

4. The said claim was contested by the tenant by asserting that no rent deceased landlord, who was receiving rent on behalf of the family. In support of this plea, the tenant relied upon rent receipts Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

5. The trial proceeded and at the stage of final arguments, the petitioner moved an application seeking permission to examine Rajinder Singh son of late Sardar Mahan Singh as an additional witness to formally prove the rent receipts. The explanation furnished was that though the rent receipts had already been placed on record and exhibited, the inadvertent omission to examine their executant required to be cured in the interest of justice.

6. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application primarily on the ground that it was intended to delay the proceedings. Reliance was also placed on pleadings filed by Rajinder Singh in a separate litigation titled Navish Kumar v. Mahan Singh, decided on 24.12.2025, wherein he had allegedly denied execution of the rent receipts.

7. This court is unable to sustain the impugned order.

8. It is not in dispute that none of the landlords examined themselves as witnesses before the Rent Controller. It is also conceded that respondent No.1 Govinder Singh expired during pendency of proceedings and his legal representatives were brought on record, whereas the ejectment petition qua Rajinder Singh was subsequently withdrawn. The sole witness examined on behalf of the landlords admittedly expressed ignorance regarding the signatures of Rajinder Singh on the rent receipts Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

9. Significantly, the Rent Controller relied upon pleadings made by Rajinder Singh in an entirely separate litigation and not upon any testimony recorded in the present proceedings. It is well settled that pleadings in another case, unless duly proved in accordance with law and subjected to cross-

examination, cannot substitute substantive evidence in the lis at hand.

10. The rent receipts Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 form the very foundation of the tenant’s defence. The consistent stand of the tenant since inception has been the original landlord and a co-owner of the property. Denial of opportunity to examine the executant of such receipts strikes at the root of fair adjudication and results in serious prejudice to the defence.

11. Procedural law is intended to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it. Mere delay, if any, cannot be a ground to shut out material evidence, particularly when the opposite party can be adequately compensated by costs. The Rent Controller was the