TARSEM LAL Vs. HARI GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 23-9 1986 dismissing the application filed by respondent No. 4 for inspection of the documents mentioned in the application for eviction and in the list of reliance. The application was filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code) for inspecting the documents so that he could file a written statement. The application for eviction was filed on 13-5-1986. The first date of hearing fixed by the Rent Controller was 7-6-1986, when the arrears of rent were tendered by the petitioner claiming that he was a direct tenant of the landlord and not the sub-tenant. On 12-6-1986, the application in question under Order 11 Rule 15 of the Code was filed. The application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that the landlord cannot be compelled to produce the documents for inspection of respondent No. 4 because he is not a party to the documents and that the application seems to be a device to seek time for filing written-statement.

(2.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order, I am of the view that both the grounds mentioned in the impugned order are unsustainable. As has been observed above, the first date of hearing in the application for eviction was 7-6-1986 The application upon which the impugned order was passed, was filed within one week of the first date of hearing. At that time, respondent No. 2, who was described to be one of the tenants by the respondent landlord, was not even served. If is not the requirement of Order 11 Rule 15 of the Code that the party wishing to inspect the documents should be a party to the document. In view thereof, neither of the grounds mentioned in the impugned order can be helpful to the landlord for keeping the order intact.

(3.) MR. Arun Jain, the learned counsel for the landlord, while supporting the impugned order has argued that sub-tenant was not a necessary party and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to seek the aid of Order 11 Rule 15 of the Code. The argument is without any force If the landlord thought that sub-tenant was not a necessary party, he could have preferred not to make him a party in the eviction application. Surely, the alleged sub tenant had cot become the party on his own application, It is the landlord's petition for eviction which has dragged him in Court- Mr. Arun Jain has farther argued that |he petitioner having claimed direct tenancy, he cannot dispute title of the landlord. The argument is devoid of any merit. No such plea has yet been taken by the petitioner. This plea may or may not be taken up by the petitioner ultimately after he inspects all the documents. If such a plea is taken, the landlord would surely have a right to take up any plea he likes. The counsel for the respondent-landlord has further argued that the question of direct tenancy cannot be gone into in the proceedings before the Rent Controller in a petition for eviction. This question has again to be decided after proper plea are taken and evidence is led by the parties and it cannot be deeded as an abstract question of law in these proceedings which arise out of the dismissal of an application under Order 11 Rule 15 of the Code.