RAKESH DWIVEDI Vs. MADHU GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the tenant had challenged order of 30.01.2014 (Annexure P-5) of the Rent Controller whereby the landlady had been allowed to lead secondary evidence of lease deed of 14.10.2006. It is claimed that secondary evidence was permitted to be led on oral request of the landlady and that too without any opportunity of contest having been provided to the tenant. It is further averred that not only the landlady was required to produce the original document but was also required to prove existence of the document before seeking permission to lead secondary evidence thereof.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent-landlady, on the other hand, has claimed that since, circumstances sufficient enough to form foundation of leading secondary evidence had been brought on record, permission to lead secondary evidence was allowed. It is claimed that the revisionist-tenant is delaying and dilating the matter of his eviction on one score or the other.

(3.) Counsel for the parties have been heard at length while going through the grounds of revision, impugned order as also the attending facts and circumstances emerging from the paper-book. An eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was filed by the landlady against the tenant. Premises are commercial. The landlady came with a definite stand of inception of tenancy in favour of the revisionist-tenant with effect from 15.10.2006 in pursuance to lease-deed dated 14.10.2006, the lease period being 11 months. Relevant pleadings of the landlady, on this count, are contained in para 2 of the eviction petition (Annexure P-1) which for ready reference are reproduced as below:-