KISHORE KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioner and Mr. K. M. Garg for the respondents. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 10-2-2000 whereby the ap plication filed by the petitioner for sum moning the sanctioned plan was rejected and the order dated 20-4-2000 whereby application filed by the petitioner for recalling the earlier order was rejected by the authority below.

(2.) IT appears that in the proceedings under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Build ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short, 'the Act'), controversy regarding sufficiency of accommodation in possession of the landlord was involved. According to the petitioner, there was suf ficient accommodation including a clinic in possession of the landlord which could be proved by the sanctioned plan itself which was in possession of the landlord; but in spite of the request made and notice given to him by the petitioner, he was not producing the same. The petitioner filed an application for summoning the sanc tioned plan from the competent authority. The application filed by the petitioner was objected to and opposed by the other side. IT was ultimately dismissed by order dated 10- 2-2000. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application for recalling the said order and issuing a direction to the respondent No. 2 for producing the sanctioned plan. The said application was also rejected on 20-4-2000, hence the present petition.

(3.) IN the present case, apparently, the conditions as envisaged under clause (a) of Section 65 exist, INasmuch as the original sanctioned plan was alleged to be in pos session of respondent No. 2 who did not produce the same in spite of notice given to him under Section 66 of the Evidence Act, therefore, the petitioner was at liberty to produce the secondary evidence. On the other hand it was contended by the respon dent No. 2 that the sanctioned plan was a public document, therefore, the petitioner was at liberty to take advance of the plea taken by the said respondent and file cer tified copy of the sanctioned plan as a public Document within the meaning of the term used under Section 74 of the Evidence Act which read as under: "74. Public documents.--The following documents are public documents- (a) documents forming the acts or records of the acts- (1) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of INdia or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country; (2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents. "