PRAKASH CHANDRA MALVIYA Vs. HARIOM AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 9.8.2005 passed by XII Civil judge, Class II, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No. 121- A/2004.

(2.) FACTS of the case in a nutshell are that the respondent Hariom Agrawal is the tenant of petitioner/owner Shri Prakash Chand Malviya of House No. 1, Lakherapura, Bhopal. The petitioner filed suit for eviction on ground of 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act for the need of his elder son. The respondent/tenant resisted the suit stating that he was in possession of the disputed accommodation, as per arrangement that he had paid to the petitioner Rs. 4.75 lacs as advance and duly executed receipt and on condition that six months notice would be given in advance on arising personal need so also the amount of Rs. 4.75 lacs was to be returned. The petitioner owner, however, had lost the original receipt and filed application for receiving the photo copy of the receipt as secondary evidence.

(3.) THE main thrust of the argument of counsel for the petitioner is that a photo copy of the original document of receipt could not be accepted as secondary evidence especially when the original-itself was not duly stamped then no proceedings could be initiated for impounding under section 33 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.