SUMAN Vs. VEENA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid two petitions have been filed against the concurrent orders of the Courts below allowing the petition/s for eviction filed by the respondent/s. Since common questions of law and fact are involved, both are being decided by this common order. For ready reference, facts of petition No. 8925 of 2015 are being taken.

(2.) The case of the respondent was that she had purchased the property in dispute from the petitioner who was the owner and had permitted the petitioner to continue staying there as a tenant. However, since the rent was not paid she filed the petition for eviction. The case of the petitioner on the other hand was that the sale deed/s executed by her and her husband actually did not intend to convey any title and as a matter of fact the petitioner and her husband had obtained loans from the respondent and these sale deed/s were executed as a security for the said loans and therefore, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. The following issues were struck:-

(3.) The petitioner appeared in support of her case but her husband did not appear at all. After going through the evidence both the Courts below held that the petitioner had not led evidence to show that the sale deed/s executed by her and her husband did not intend to convey any title and were only executed as a security for loan transaction. Before this Court an application for additional evidence bearing CM No. 3619-CII of 2016 has also been filed seeking to place on record affidavits of three persons one of whom was witness of the loan transaction and the remaining two were neighbours of the petitioner who state that they also have personal knowledge that the real transaction was not a sale transaction but was a security transaction. Valuation report has also been sought to be placed on record to show that the sale value of the property is much higher than the value reflected in the sale deed/s and the rent amount was an equated monthly instalment. As regards the parameters of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. it has been alleged in the application that the deponents of the three affidavits were not willing to give the testimony and have now been persuaded to come forward. However, as regards the valuation report no reason is forthcoming as to why the same could not be placed on record earlier. As regards the application for additional evidence, learned senior counsel for the respondent has argued that in any case the valuation report is ex facie not admissible in evidence because no reason has been given as to why the same could not be placed on record earlier and as regards the affidavits of the three persons also, the argument raised is that the ground that earlier those persons were not inclined to give testimony can never be taken into consideration unless it be shown as to what was the reason because of which they were not inclined to give their testimony earlier and what was the reason which prevailed upon them to now come forward because only then could the Court come to the conclusion whether that evidence could be led after due diligence.