BRIJ MOHAN MAHAJAN Vs. SHRIMATI PREM LATA KATHURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN pending ejectment application, the petitioner filed an application to adduce additional evidence to produce certified copy of the sale deed of the house sold by the landlady six months earlier to the purchase of the tenanted premises. According to the petitioner, this evidence was required to prove that the landlady is in the habit of purchasing the tenanted premises, getting the same vacated and thereafter selling at higher price. The landlady though had admitted in her statement that she sold House No. 3316, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh, but to prove the recital in the sale deed, the production of the document and its proof is essential to determine the real controversy between the parties. The counsel, in support of his contention, relied upon judicial pronouncements of this Court reported in Raj Kumar v. Improvement Trust, Hansi, (1988) 94 P. L. R. 196. and Mohinder Singh Ex-Head Constable v. The State of Haryana, (1987-2) 92 P. L. R. 393. and further urged that even if the case does not fall within the ambit of Order 18 Rule 17-A C. P. C. , yet this provision cannot be so construed so as to defeat the cause of justice. At best for the delay, so caused, the other party can be compensated with costs. Counsel for the respondent, however, has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. According to him, no party can be permitted to fill up the lacuna in the case nor an application can be granted unless the same falls within the ambit of Order 18 Rule 17-A C. P. C. For this the counsel placed reliance upon the authorities reported as Lakhbir Singh v. Kesar Kaur, 1984 C. L. J. 559. and Kulwant Singh v. Makhan Singh (1992-2) P. L. R. 339.

(2.) THE matter in controversy is very short. The execution of the sale deed by the landlady is not in dispute. In fact, she made statement of this effect in the Court. The sole reason assigned by the petitioner for seeking permission to produce in evidence the certified copy of the sale deed is to prove that the landlady is in the habit of purchasing a disputed premises, getting the same vacated on the ground of personal necessity or for any other valid reason as provided under the Rent Act and thereafter selling the same at higher price. This aspect of the matter, of course, needs some scrutiny keeping in view the same. I think it would be just and proper if one opportunity is given to the petitioner to prove the certified copy of the sale deed dated 9. 10. 1986 pertaining to House No 3316 Sector 35-D, Chandigarh Accordingly, I allow it subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. This petition is allowed accordingly.