BUBU RAM Vs. CHARAN DASS AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Babu Ram has filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Taran, Taran dated 21st September, 1974, by which it was ordered that the rent deed produced by the petitioner could not be received in evidence.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner was directed by the learned Rent Controller to produce the rent deed but the same could not be produced as the petitioner was not able to trace it. Thereafter the petitioner produced the rent deed and got it placed on the file. The respondents on the date of the hearing raised an objection that the rent deed could not be admitted into evidence in view of the provisions of Section 164 of the Indian Evidence Act. This objection was upheld by the learned Rent Controller.

(3.) From the bare perusal of the order I find that the learned Rent Controller was influenced by the fact that the petitioner refused to proceed the document when he was asked to do so on the application that had been filed by the tenants. As has been observed earlier, the petitioner could not produce the document earlier as he was not able to trace it. Under the Rent Restriction Act, the proceedings are of a summary nature and there has not to be strict compliance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In order to determine the real controversy between the parties and to do full justice, the Rent Controller should have allowed the production of the rent deed. Merely on a technical objection there was no justification in disallowing the prayer for the production of the rent deed. At the most after allowing the production of the rent deed, the other side could have been compensated by ordering payment of costs. The learned Rent Controller fell in error in disallowing the production of the document with the result that the impugned order cannot legally be sustained.