Raj Kumar v. Rajnish Mittal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.654 of 2024 Date of Decision: 17.05.2024 Raj Kumar ...Revisionist-Petitioner

Versus

Rajnish Mittal

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present:- Mr. Shubham Chandel, Advocate, for the revisionist-petitioner.

* * * * MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. (ORAL) Feeling aggrieved by the order (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Rent Controller, Rajpura, on 05.09.2023 in Rent Petition No.23 of 2021 titled as 'Rajnish Mittal versus Raj Kumar', whereby the application (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner-tenant (here-in-after to be referred as 'the tenant') for seeking the issuance of direction to the respondent-landlord (here-in-after to be referred as 'the landlord') to place the original rent-deeds dated 10.07.1998 and 01.10.2001 on the record, has been dismissed, he (tenant) has chosen to prefer the instant revision-petition to lay challenge to the same. 2.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant in this revision-petition, at the preliminary stage and have perused the file carefully. 3.

Learned counsel for the tenant contends that the tenant had filed the afore-referred application as he needed to go through the above-said rentdeeds for the purpose of preparing/filing his Reply to the amended petition but vide the impugned order, the Rent Controller has wrongly dismissed the same NEETU RANI 2024.06.03 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

CR No.654 of 2024 -2and in these circumstances, it becomes explicit that the said order is not legally sustainable and hence, it deserves to be set-aside. 4.

However, the afore-raised contention does not hold any water because though in the above-referred application, the tenant has averred that he requires to peruse the original rent-deeds for the purpose of preparing/filing the Reply to the amended petition but throughout therein, he has not come forward with any fair and candid reason/version as to how the original rent-deeds would be essential for the afore-said purpose, especially in the circumstances when, as observed in the impugned order, the photocopies thereof have been placed on the record by none other than him only. Moreover, in his Reply (Annexure P-5) to the above-mentioned application, the landlord, has specifically asserted that the afore-said rent-deeds are not in his possession. 5.

As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, perversity or infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the revision-petition in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed. May 17, 2024 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) seema JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable : No NEETU RANI 2024.06.03 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD