GOURAN DEVI Vs. DEVI DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner aggrieved against the dismissal of her application under Order 14 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code has come to this court through the present revision petition. The brief facts may first be enumerated.

(2.) Gouran Devi, the landlady brought a petition for eviction against Devi Dayal respondent on the grounds of non-payment of rent as also that the premises in question were unsafe and unfit for human habitation. This petition for eviction was filed on 11.5.1988. Rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month was stated to be due with effect from 1.6.1976 till the filing of the petition. The premises in dispute had come to be owned by the petitioner on account of family partition between her and family members in the year 1976. The respondent tenant was, however, inducted as such in the year 1954. Concededly, Satara Lal husband of the petitioner if not exclusive owner was at least one of the co-sharers of the premises in question upto 1976. In the family settlement that was arrived at between the parties through the help of the Court; concededly as well, the petitioner Gouran Devi and Satara Lal were parties. The plea of the tenant respondent in the written statement was that in so far as the rent is concerned the same has been paid upto 30th September, 1966, to Satara Lal. The rest of the rent was admittedly tendered before the Rent Controller on the first date of hearing. The facts stated above would go to show that in so far as question of non-payment of rent is concerned the dispute between the parties is only with regard to small period from 1.7.1976 to 30.9.1976. The plea of the tenant respondent in the written statement was that the rent for the said period was paid to Satara Lal, who had executed receipt in proof thereof. The petitioner had already examined her evidence and it is at the stage when the evidence of the respondent was being recorded that application under Order 14, Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the petitioner with a prayer that a photostat copy of receipt of rent from 1.6.1976 to 30.9.1976 now produced on the records of the case should be allowed to produce evidence in rebuttal with a view to show that the said receipts was forged. It is pertinent to mention here that prior in point of time the respondent tenant wanted to compare thumb impression of the petitioner on the receipt said to have been executed by her. The said receipt also to have been executed by her. The said receipt also depicts payment of rent for the same period from 1.7.1976 to 30.9.1976. However, after examining the Expert by obtaining permission of the Court, the respondent tenant put in receipt, which is said to have been executed by Satara Lal and prayed to the Court that he be allowed to compare his handwriting on the said receipt with that of Satara Lal available on the records of earlier case which resulted into a decree of family settlement between Gouran Devi petitioner and her husband Satara Lal, reference of which has been given above. It is at the stage when application dated 22nd May, 1990 had already been allowed for the Expert to compare the handwriting of Satara Lal available on the receipt with his handwriting available in the court record that present application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties dismissed the application.

(3.) The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no permission from the Court was ever sought and the receipt was put in stealthily by the tenant respondent and, therefore, the same should not be permitted to remain on the records of the case as also that the receipt in question saw the light of the day for the first time and the plea of the tenant that the same could not be produced earlier for the reasons that the same was attached with another case pertaining to the fair rent was totally incorrect. The learned counsel appearing for respondent, however, refutes the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the petitioner and contends that once an application for examining the Expert with a view to compare the handwriting of Satara Lal on the receipt with the available handwriting of said Satara Lal was allowed by the Court nothing else was required to be done by the tenant and that the receipt could not be produced earlier for the reason that the same was available with the records of another case titled as 'Devi Dayal v. Gouran Devi', Rent Case No. 20. The learned counsel also produced in this Court receipt said to have been signed by Satara Lal, copy of which has been prepared from the pending case titled as 'Devi Dayal v. Gouran Devi'.