ANIL KUMAR Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.7.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby application 272 Ga filed by the tenant for production of original 'Will' relied upon by the respondent Subhash Chandra Rastogi, has been rejected.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that relationship of landlord and tenant has been denied since the very beginning by filing written statement.The Will alleged to have been executed in favour of respondent Subhash Chandra Rastogi by late Munna Lal has been challenged. The contention is that only photocopy of the Will has been filed by the respondent Subhash Chandra Agarwal before the Appellate Court below which was accepted to conclude that he was landlord of the premises in question. It is contended that the photocopy of the Will can not be read in evidence under section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and the respondent was required to produce original registered Will to establish that he was owner of the premises in question. As the Will has not been produced, it could not be considered as true by the court below.