DEVENDER PAL Vs. RAMESH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the successors-in-interest of Shri Bakshi Ram. They are tenants of a room bearing private No.5 in property bearing number 12/30, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi and are facing eviction proceedings in the court of Additional Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 on the allegation that late Bakshi Ram had sublet the premises to Shri Tirath Ram.

(2.) At the stage of evidence before the Additional Rent Controller, the landlord Shri Ramesh Chander by way of his examination-in-chief filed his affidavit dated October 24,2002 and alongwith it besides other documents filed cheque dated May 25,1992 and a covering letter of the same date. On January 28,2004 he entered the witness box and tendered his affidavit in evidence which was exhibited as P1. The cheque dated May 25,1992 and the covering letter were exhibited as Ext.PW1/2 and PW1/3. The exhibiting of these two documents was objected to by learned counsel for the tenant. It is so mentioned in the evidence of PW1 recorded on that day in the following words : ? objected to the documents Ext.PW1/2 and Ext.PW1/3.? Notwithstanding the objection taken counsel for the tenant went ahead with the cross examination of PW1 and thereafter he further cross-examined him on September 28,2004 However, on December 23, 2004, the tenants filed an application under Order 13 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that as they had taken an objection to the cheques and the covering letter dated May 25,1992 being exhibited as PW1/2 and PW1/3 those documents could not be taken to have been admitted in evidence and therefore should be returned to the landlord before proceeding further in the matter. Reliance in this regard was placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court titled R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder V. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P.Temple and another AIR 2003 SC 4548. The Additional Rent Controller vide order dated April 24,2007 dismissed the application. It is against this order that the tenants have preferred the present petition.

(3.) The aforementioned judgment on which reliance was placed before the Additional Rent Controller as also before me lays down that Order 13 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for every document admitted in evidence in the suit being endorsed by or on behalf of the Court, which endorsement signed or initiated by the Judge amounts to admission of the document in evidence. An objection to the admissibility of the document should be raised before such endorsement is made and the Court is obliged to form its opinion on the question of admissibility and express the same on which opinion would depend the document being endorsed as admitted or not admitted in evidence. In the latter case the document may be returned by the Court to the person from whose custody it was produced. It is further laid down in the judgment that the objection as to the admissibility of a document can be of two kinds. One to the admissibility of the document itself and the other to the manner of proof of the document though it may be otherwise admissible. The Court says that so far as the first category of objection is concerned it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings but with regard to the other category where it relates to the mode of proof of the document the objection should be taken at the earliest possible so that the party seeking to prove the same in evidence is able to take remedial steps in proving it as per the law of evidence.