LAWS(P&H)-2013-4-131

KULWANT SINGH Vs. DALIP KUMAR

Decided On April 23, 2013
KULWANT SINGH Appellant
V/S
DALIP KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against the dismissal of the petition for ejectment made by the Rent Controller as affirmed by the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The only ground of eviction that was laid by the landlord was that the tenant had been in default in payment of rent from 01.03.1991 to 31.12.1996. The petition had been filed on 13.12.1996. The rent was stated to be Rs. 400/- per month. The contention in reply by the tenant was that there had been no default at all in the payment of rent and his wife herself had received the rent.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Court could not have relied on the document marked DA in view of the fact that the document did not contain any date and did not also spell that the amount of rent was being demanded through the bearer. The letter contained the following lines:-

(3.) This letter ought to have been assigned an exhibit number itself since the document was confronted to the petitioner and when he denied it, the tenant himself spoke about the document as having been received through a bearer of the petitioner's wife. The document is proved to the extent to which it was possible as document received to him purported to have been signed by the petitioner's wife. No doubt, the letter does not make any reference to rent but at least it showed that the relationship had been reasonably cordial and the wife was demanding a particular sum of money. The date is also not there but with reference to detail which the document is silent about, Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act makes possible evidence to be given to supplement what the document does not give. While a parole evidence to contract, a written document is barred by law, there is no bar to explaining the circumstances to which a particular document is silent about. The document could not have been, therefore, rejected out of consideration and must have been taken along with other circumstances to consider whether the defence was true or not.