HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner - tenant is aggrieved against the order passed by the Rent Controller, Nawanshahar, whereby he allowed the application of the petitioner - landlord to lead secondary evidence. In the present case, respondent - landlord had instituted a petition for eviction. In para 2 of the Rent Petition, petitioner - landlord had made a specific averment, which is as under:

(2.) It is stated that in pursuance of the notice issued by the Rent Petition, respondent - tenant appeared and filed application (Annexure P-1), in which he averred that on inspection of the file, it has been revealed that petitioner - landlord has placed incomplete alleged family settlement without map, on the file with malafide intention. A reply was filed by the landlord, in which it was stated that documents placed i.e., family settlement is a complete document and a photocopy of the same has been produced. Thereafter, application (Annexure P-3) was filed by the landlord stating therein that the documents are not traceable, which were with the petitioner, in spite of best efforts and on the basis of the same, rent has been paid, admitting the petitioner to the Rent Petition as owner/ landlord. Reply (Annexure P-4) was filed, in which it was stated that as a matter of fact, alleged family settlement relied by the landlord is a false, fictitious and sham document. The application of landlord was allowed vide impugned order and he was permitted to lead secondary evidence. The Rent Controller, Nawanshahar, while allowing the application, further observed that tenant - respondent would be at liberty not only to raise objections regarding admissibility of the documents in question, but he would also be entitled to cross-examine the petitioner as well as the witnesses to be examined by him, as also to lead his own evidence so as to controvert the evidence of the petitioner. It was further observed that no prejudice is therefore, going to be caused to the respondent in the event of allowing the petitioner to lead secondary evidence in respect of the documents in question.

(3.) The present petition is misconceived. In the application, it has been stated that in spite of the best efforts, documents are not traceable. It has been stated in the present petition that the Rent Controller has not examined the necessary ingredients for invoking Sec. 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that original documents should have been lost or destroyed. Whether the documents in original have been lost or destroyed, is a matter of evidence. No party can be permitted to rely on the fact that appropriate words have not been used and it has been stated that the documents are not traceable. It will only surface in the evidence that the landlord will examine whether original or the document has been lost of destroyed. It can be determined by the Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence, whether the documents in original have been lost or destroyed. It is premature at this stage to consider this argument. Furthermore, the necessary safeguard has been provided by the Rent Controller, when it has been stated that no prejudice is going to be caused and tenant will be at liberty to raise objections to the admissibility of the documents. It can be safely inferred that present petition has been filed only to delay the proceedings.