R L KOHLI Vs. BEENA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been directed against the order dated 14th February, 1994 passed by Shri D.S. Bawa, Additional Rent Controller whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the application of the petitioner/landlord to bring on record certain documents including the electoral roll of polling station, photo copy of the petitioner's ration card duly attested by notary public, certified copy of the driving licence of Mr.S.K. Kohli and true copy of the passport of petitioner's son Shri S.K. Kohli.

(2.) Mr.Swatantra Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/landlord submitted that the respondent/tenant had earlier filed a petition bearing CM(M) 219 / 93 and in this petition he had submitted that the tenant should be permitted to bring on record two documents, namely, Form No.24 for TDS submitted to the Income Tax Deptt. and photo copy of the relevant page of Bombay Telephone Directory 1992. It was also prayed in this petition that the petitioner be permitted to examine his remaining evidence. A learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 22nd July, 1993 permitted the tenant to bring on record only a copy of the Form No.24 for the year 1990-91 pertaining to M/s.Hindustan Breweries & Bottling Ltd. The tenant was, however, permitted to lead other evidence on two dates in August, 1993 and September, 1993. The main grievance of learned counsel for the landlord is that the learned Additional Rent Controller besides permitting the petitioner to bring on record a photo copy of the form 24 had also permitted the tenant to bring on record two other documents i.e. copies of the annual report of M/s.Hindustan Breweries & Bottling Ltd. for the year 1991 and Bombay Telephone Directories for the years 1988 & 1992. It is an admitted case of the parties that these documents have not been proved by examining any witness. Mr.Swatantra Kumar, therefore, contended that the Additional Rent Controller ought not have permitted the tenant to bring on record these documents in view of the orders dated 22nd July, 1993 passed by this Court in CM(M) 219/93. He, however, submitted that in any case if the tenant was permitted to bring on record these documents, the landlord should also have been permitted to bring on record certain documents which he wanted to file before the trial court in rebuttal of these documents.

(3.) Mr. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant, however, submits that two documents, namely, annual report of M/s.Hindustan Breweries & Bottling Ltd. and Bombay Telephone Directory are the public documents and there is no error in the order passed by the learned trial court allowing these documents to be brought on record. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller rejecting the application of the landlord to bring on record certain documents mentioned in his application dated 18th October, 1993 is legal and valid.