SMT. PRITAM KAUR Vs. HARBANS SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issues in the petition for ejectment filed by the landlord-petitioner had been framed by the learned Rent Controller on January 6, 1976, An application was made by her on, the first date fixed for her evidence, i. e. February 21, 1976 to issue notice to the tenant to admit or deny the contents of a letter purporting to have been written and signed by the tenant which was produced in Court. The tenant respondent in his statement of that date denied his signature on the letter. Two days later, i. e. on February 23, 1976, the petitioner made an application to the Rent Controller to obtain the specimen signatures and specimen writing of the tenant so as to enable the petitioner to prove the disputed letter. The order M.M. Bhalla Rent Controller, Patiala, on that application. The learned Rent Controller has held that the letter was the basis of ejectment application and having been admittedly in the possession and power of the petitioner should have been filed with the petition for eviction and that course not having been adopted, the letter could not be permitted to be produced at that late stage.

(2.) The order of the learned trial Court appears to be wholly misconceived. A letter containing certain admissions which may be of assistance to the petitioner to prove her case is not necessarily the basis of the petition for eviction. The claim in the petition is for ejectment and the letter in question could not be treated as basis of the petition for ejectment. It only formed a part of the documentary evidence which the petitioner could produce. Since the letter purports to have been written and signed by the tenant, it can even be produced at the time of the recording of the statement of the tenant during his cross-examination. In order, however, to avoid the letter remaining unproved if the tenant were to deny his signatures at that stage, the petitioner took the precaution of producing it immediately after the issues were framed and on the first date fixed for her evidence. In these circumstances, the order of the trial Court cannot be sustained.

(3.) It is significant that the petitioner, who is the landlord cannot possibly have any interest in prolonging the case or delaying its disposal. She can have no motive to keep back the letter and intentionally producing it at a late stage. At best, the trial Court could have burdened the petitioner with some costs for the late production of the letter.