DEV RAJ SHARMA Vs. BANITA MAHENDRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dtd. 23/11/2022, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., whereby an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC, having been filed by the petitioner-tenant for bringing on record the additional documents i.e. site plan of the dispute premises came to be dismissed, petitioner tenant has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order and thereafter, grant permission to place on record the site plan.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that respondent landlord filed suit for eviction against the tenant qua premises comprising of shop located in house No 189/1, Jawahar Nagar, Mandi, Mandi Town, District Mandi, H.P., on the ground of arrear of rent and bonafide requirement. He specifically set up a case in the rent petition that two shops on the ground floor were rented by him to the tenant in the year 1978, but he removed the partition of the shops. Landlord also claimed that sum of Rs.8000.00 was being taken as rent from both the shops, but since July, 2016, no rent has been paid. Landlord in his reply categorically denied factum with regard to renting out of two shops by the landlord. He specifically claimed that one shop for monthly rent of Rs.250.00 pm, was rented out, but subsequently, such rent was enhanced to Rs.500.00. Since rent was not being received by the landlord, tenant deposited the rent in the court below under Sec. 21 of the HP Urban Rent Control Act. After framing of issues, respondent-landlord led evidence, but before commencement of the evidence of the tenant, he filed application under Order 8 Rule 1 (a) CPC, seeking therein permission to place on record site plan of the disputed premises to prove internal area of each shop, however, such prayer of him came to be rejected on the ground that site plan proposed to be proved on record is of no relevance as far as controversy inter-se parties is concerned. In the aforesaid background, tenant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid impugned order.

(3.) Ms. Seema K. Guleria, learned counsel for the petitioner tenant vehemently argued that impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and as same is not based upon the proper appreciation of the facts as well as law. He argued that site plan proposed to be placed on record is very much relevant for adjudication of the case because that would clearly show that only one shop was rented out to the tenant for monthly rent of Rs.250.00. She further argued that otherwise also, aforesaid document is relevant to point out contradictions and inconsistencies in the case of the landlord. While placing reliance upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4096 of 2022 (SLP ((THELAW))) No. 7452 of 2022, Levaku Pedda Reddamma and Ors v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and Anr, Ms. Guleria, vehemently argued that relevant documents intended to be placed on record can be examined by the court on the basis of entire evidence to be led, but definitely relevance of such documents cannot be seen at the time of filing of the application under Order 8 Rule 1 (a) CPC. She also placed reliance upon judgment passed by Sikkim High Court in Prashant Kumar Goyal v. Smt. Sogra Khatoon and Ors, AIR 2012 Sikkim 1, to state that relevancy of the document intended to be placed on record by way of additional evidence is not to be seen at the stage of considering such application, rather in totality of evidence to be led on record by the parties to the lis.