SANDEEP GHAI Vs. HARMINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner, who is respondent in the rent petition, for de-exhibiting the documents mentioned/exhibited in the affidavit filed in the Court on 12.04.2016 in examination-in-chief along with documents in question by PW1 Harminder Singh (respondent No.1 herein), stands dismissed.

(2.) It is the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 tendered his affidavit in examination-in-chief along with documents in question i.e. exhibits P1 to exhibits P57 on 104.2016 when objection regarding mode of proof and admissibility of the said documents was raised by the petitioner. The Rent Controller, although recorded the objections but did not decide the same and fixed the case for cross-examination of PW1. An application was preferred at this stage by the petitioner, praying for de-exhibiting the documents so exhibited. He contends that the Rent Controller should have decided the objection as has been raised there and then at the time of examination of PW1 and because of the same having not been done, the petitioner has been prejudiced as the documents, although have not been proved as mandated under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, "the Evidence Act"), but have been exhibited. This, he submits, is not sustainable in law. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgement of Honourable Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and others, 2003 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 579 and that of this Court in Girdhari Lal Vs. Ritesh Mahajan and another, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 426, Net Ram, etc . Vs. Harkesh Major, etc., 1973 Cur.L.J. 373 and further on the judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported as Pawan Kumar Pathak Vs. Mohan Prasad, 2016 (1) Civil LJ 642, and that of Delhi High Court in Smt. Shail Kumari Vs. Smt. Saraswati Devi, 2002 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 239, Rakesh Jain & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Bhola, 2011 (7) R.C.R. (Civil) 2317 and Gurpal Singh Vs. C.B.I., 1997 (1) CCR 9. He, on this basis, submits that the impugned order, being unsustainable, deserves to be set-aside and the exhibited documents be ordered to be de-exhibited.

(3.) On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that the strict provisions of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "CPC") are not applicable to the rent proceedings by referring to judgements of this Court in Dr. S.P. Arora Vs. Satbir Singh, 2010 (5) R.C.R. (Civil) 350, Municipal Council Kapurthala Vs. Chaman Lal & Another, 2015 (5) Law Herald 3942, Civil Revision No.7724 of 2013 (Lakhbir Singh @ Lakhwinder Singh @ Raja Vs. Balwinder Singh and others), dated on 16.12.2013 and Devi Sahai, Proprietor M/s. Jai & Sons Vs. Mrs. Triloch Pathak, 2015 (8) R.C.R. (Civil) 156. He submits that in any case there is no provision under the Code of Civil Procedure or under the Evidence Act for de-exhibiting the documents already exhibited. In this regard, he places reliance on the following judgements :-