SADHU RAM Vs. S P KARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the landlord against the order of the Rent Controller declining his application to prove the Rent note dated 16-4-1931 by way of secondary evidence.

(2.) AS per the case of the petitioner, the respondent is occupying the premises as a tenant under him whereas the respondent has denied that he is a tenant under the petitioner rather his case is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner in his petition alleged that tenancy in favour of the respondent was created on 16-4-1931 by owners namely Dipu Mal and Udho Ram. Thereafter, the property was purchased by Ganga Ram and Banu Ram in court auction, from whom the petitioner purchased the property in the year 1988. During the course of his evidence, the petitioner examined Mr. V. P Jain S/o Ganga Ram in order to prove certain documents alleged to be in his possession after the death of Ganga Ram. One of the documents sought to be produced was the alleged rent-note dated 16. 4. 1931. However, the said witness stated that he is not in possession of rent note. The petitioner thereafter, filed an application to prove the rent note by way of secondary evidence. The said application was declined by the Rent Controlled. This order is being impugned in the present revision petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that he wants to prove only an extract of the entry contained in the Register of Petition-writer by summoning the Petition-writer with the original register. This evidence to my mind is not a secondary evidence because by proving this document, the petitioner is not trying to prove the rent-note, but only an extract of the entry contained in the register of Petition-writer, to which he is otherwise entitled to prove by summoning the Petition-writer.