RANJIT SINGH Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter called the Act), against the order of the Rent Controller, Kapurthala, dated 15th February, 1988, allowing the landlord to prove the copy of the licence deed/rent note by way of secondary evidence.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that Subhash Chander landlord in ejectment proceedings under section 13 of the Act for ejectment of Ranjit Singh respondent from the premises in dispute filed an application for allowing secondary evidence by way of producing copy of the licence deed/rent note allegedly executed by Ranjit Singh tenant in favour of the previous landlord Shri K.K. Sikand, contending that the original is not traceable. This application was resisted by the tenant on the ground that in his testimony recorded on 11th December, 1986, Shri K.K. Sikand had admitted in his cross-examination that the rent note/licence deed was in his possession but he had not brought it in the Court. It was further maintained that the rent-note has been withheld as it was unstamped and forged document. An objection was also taken regarding the admissibility of this rent-note for want of proper registration and being unstamped.

(3.) MR . Arun Jain, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner, contended that the Rent Controller had failed to observe the requirements of section 65 of the Evidence Act, as loss of the original rent note/licence deed was not proved on the file. He further contended the finding of the Rent Controller regarding the use of such of a document for collateral purposes being vague, should also be set aside. Mr. Munishwar Puri, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the findings of the trial Court beside maintaining that such findings of the trial Court should not be interfered lightly on the original side.