TULSI DEVI Vs. SOM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment and order this Court disposes of two civil revisions registered as C. R. Nos. 309and 310 of 1995.

(2.) Both the petitioners are common in the revision petitions and they are tenants. Respondents-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioners under Sec. 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 on the ground of sub-letting and change of user of the rented premises from residential to non-residential and also bona fide requirement of the landlords. In defence, a plea was taken by the tenants that since 1958 the premises had beer, let out to the predecessor in interest of the present petitioners for non-residential purpose and as such there is no change of user. It was also alleged that after the death of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, the present petitioners have inherited the tenancy of the premises in question and are carrying on business in the premises in question. The allegations of bona fide requirement and sub-letting were denied. According to the present petitioners their predecessor in interest Shri Nika Ram carried on business in the premises in question in partnership with his brother Shri Birbal Ram and the shop was duly registered, and a certificate being Serial No. 58/816 dated 22-7-1958, under the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, was issued and a certificate of registration was duly issued by the Labour Inspector/Shop Inspector under the Punjab Act. This certificate was lost. The present petitioners filed an application under Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act with a prayer to allow secondary evidence. It has also been stated that there was earlier litigation between the landlord against Nika Ram being Case No. 22/2 of 1986, wherein an attested copy of the certificate was placed on record. The concerned clerk from the office of the Labour Inspector/Shop Inspector was examined and he showed his ignorance regarding issuance of the certificate issued in the year 1958 and therefore, the application under Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act was moved seeking permission to lead secondary evidence. By the impugned judgment both the Courts below rejected the application.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.