ASHOK KUMAR Vs. SHAKUNTALA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order impugned is the order dated 18.7.2007 which had endorsed the finding of the trial judge dated 18.12.2002 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord Shakuntala Rani and others seeking eviction of her tenant from the suit property (comprising of one room measuring 20 x 10 feet, ground floor of the property No. 25/16,Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi) under section 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed.

(2.) Record shows that the present eviction petition had been filed under section 14(1)(a), 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) of the DRCA. Contention of the landlord was that the premises had been let out for a residential purpose but were being misused i.e. for a commercial purpose which was a user of the shop; further contention was that the premises were lying unused as a residence for the last six months. Both these contention had found favour with the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) who after discussing the respective evidence both oral and documentary led by the respective parties had decreed the petition of the landlord. The Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) had endorsed this finding. Before the RCT three applications had also been filed along the appeal; the first application was an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seeking permission of the court to lead additional evidence. Contention being that rent receipts which had been produced in the trial court had merely been marked as A, B and C but the original receipts had been filed in a pending eviction under section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA and the said documents are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal. In the second application it had been contended that the documents Ex.PW-1/R-1 to Ex. PW-1/R-3 had been de-exhibited and had been marked as A, B and C but in view of the averments made in the first application these documents having been filed in an earlier pending petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA the same now be permitted to be exhibited. The prayer in the third application was to the effect that the permission be granted to the tenant to place on the record registration certificate granted to the tenant for running a shop in the suit premises in view of the changed policy of the government.

(3.) The RCT while dealing with the appeal had dealt with all the aforenoted applications. All the aforenoted applications had been dismissed. RCT had noted that in fact to satisfy its conscience the ARC had summoned the record of eviction petition No. 148/89 (which was a petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA) whereby the originals of the purported documents marked A, B and C had been filed but perusal of the said record had evidenced that this was not the correct position and documents marked A, B and C were only photocopies even in the record of the eviction petition No. 148/89 and as such this submission of the petitioner that the documents which had been de- exhibited and marked A,B and C should be permitted to be exhibited and additional evidence to the said extent be allowed had rightly been dismissed. Court had also noted that the rent receipts Ex.PW-1/R-1 to Ex.PW-1/R-3 which has initially been exhibited clearly evidenced cuttings and over-writings on the aforenoted documents which had created suspicion on the authenticity of the said documents; the word "residence" having been added in different ink in Ex.PW-1/R-1 to PW-1/R-3. The ARC who had thus de-exhibited these documents vide its order dated 02.7.2006 had not committed any fallacy. The first appellate court had accordingly disallowed all the aforenoted three applications. This finding calls for no interference.