S B SANGLIKAR Vs. HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision aplication is an offshoot of a suit for eviction pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, filed by the plaintiff-applicant. In that suit the plaintiff claims that the defendant-respondent is a tresspasser, being in occupation of the suit property which con sists of residential premises. In addition to possession, the plaintiff has claimed a decree for Rs. 21,439.29 on account of damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.1000/-per month. The substantive defence of the defendant in his written statement is that he is a tenant of the premises. The plaintiffs claim for eviction and damages has been denied by him. The defendant had filed a suit, being suit No. 1705 of 1973 in the Court of Small Cause, Pune, for a declarantion that he is a tenant of the suit premises in which, according to the defendant, he was a tenant at Rs. 500/- per month and he claimed injunction against the plaintiff that he should be restrained from interfering with the defendants possession. This suit No. 1705 of 1973 has been in terms referred to in the plaint It is not in dispute that in this suit the defendant failed and the declaration which he sought was denied, The decision of the Small Cause Court was confirmed by the this Court in special Civil Application No. 1576 of 1976 and the defendant's application for special leave filed before the Supreme Court also came to be rejected. It appears that thereafter the plaintiff moved the trial Court for recasting the issues In the light of the decision in civil suit No. 1705 of 1973. The trial Court recast the issues on 12th January 1977 and while originally there were 13 issues, now the trial Court found that five issues would be sufficient for disposal of the suit.

(2.) Prior to the recasting of the issues, the plaintiff on 5th January 1977 filed an application requesting the Court to take or record about 189 documents, a large part of which are in the form of receipts or cash memos or bills which purport to be in connection with certain improvements which the plaintiff claims to have made in the suit premises. There are, however, two or three important documents such as a certified copy of the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1576 of 1976, a copy of the plaint in suit No 1705 of 1973 and a copy of the sale deed dated 31st May 1956 evidencing the purchase of the suit premises by the plaintiff. Two other documents are in the form of blue prints to show the extent of the accommodation in the suit bungalow. There are some other documents which refer to the complaints made by the parties to the Police The obvious object of the plaintiff in filing these documents was to show that the plaintiff was a trespasser and to prove the approximate amount of money invested by him firstly in the purchase of the property and then for repairs. The defendant opposed the filing of these documents on the ground that he has not explained the delay in filing the documents Alternatively he claimed heavy costs and sufficient time to go through the documents. The trial Court, however, rejected the plaintiffs application for permission to produce the documents. The trial Court took the view that the documents were irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the question of damages which, according to the trial Court would be granted on the basis of the area of premises and the probable rent that the premises would fetch. For this, according to the trial Court, the amount spent on the repairs & the alterations could not be taken into consideration. Thus, the trial Court expressed the view that the documents were wholly irrelevant and, therefore, disallowed production It is this order which the plaintiff has challenged in this revision application.

(3.) It appears from the order of the trial court that the trial court had in its mind while passing the order only cash memos or bills or receipts relating to building material and expenses incurred for the carrying out repairs to the suit property but these are only some of the documents. The learned Judge does not seem to have applied his mind to other documents. The plaintiff is claiming damages on the footing that the defendant is trespasser. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, it was obviously necessary for the plaintiff to produce the plaint in the defendant's suit for declaration and the judgment of this court which finally concluded the controversy with regard to the alleged tenancy. It was obvious therefore, that a certified copy of the judgment of this Court in special Civil Application No. 1576 of 1976 was a very essential document for proving the plaintiff's case that the defendant is not a tenant. Similarly the plans filed were quite relevant for ascertaining the extent of the accommodation which will have a direct bearing on the quantum of damages, if the plaintiff is found entitled to claim them. The value of the property at the time of purchase will also be a relevant factor which could best be proved by the sale deed in respect of the suit property. The fact that the plaintiff has been treating the defendant as a trespasser is required to be proved by the plaintiff and it is obvious that for this purpose, he wanted to produce copies of complaints and the charge sheet.