ORDER

Kiran Anand Lall, J. – The Rent Controller having dismissed the application for additional evidence, the tenant-petitioner has challenged the impugned order, in this petition.

2. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the petition. The additional evidence sought to be led by the petitioner, in the ejectment petition pending against him, is a report of local commissioner appointed by court in a suit for permanent injunction titled M/s. Babu Ram Sadhu Ram vs. Puran Chand and another, besides an application filed by him under order 1 rule 10 CPC for his impleadment as a party to that suit and a copy of plaint of that suit.

3. The petitioner, it may be stated, had moved the application, after both parties had concluded their evidence and case was at the stage of final arguments. It is not his case that if he had exercised due diligence, even then he could not have produced the additional evidence in question at the time when he led his evidence. He, it may be mentioned, has no case even on merits. Both parties have already examined building experts as their respective witnesses, in order to show the condition of shop, whereas the local commissioner, whose report the petitioner wants to produce in additional evidence, is not an expert in the filed. In so far as the copy of application moved by the petitioner for his impleadment as a party to the suit for permanent injunction (supra) and the copy of plaint of that suit are concerned, the same do not appear to have any relevancy, whatsoever, to the facts of the case in hand.

4. The learned Rent Controller had rightly dismissed the application for additional evidence, by recording a well reasoned and detailed order. There is no merit in the petition and the same shall stand dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

********