SUMAN BALA Vs. RAKESH SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein/tenant, standing, aggrieved by an affirmative order pronounced by the learned Rent Controller, upon, the landlord's application, cast, under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the CPC, hence, has instituted the instant petition before this Court.

(2.) The landlord/respondent herein, had instituted a petition, seeking therein eviction, of, the tenant/petitioner herein, from, the demised premises, (i) and, the ground reared in the apposite eviction petition, is, embodied in the factum, of it, being bonafidely required, for, the personal use, of, the landlord/petitioner therein. During the pendency of the rent petition before the learned Rent Controller, an application, cast under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC, stood instituted there before, by the landlord, (ii) wherein, leave was sought for placing on record, a report, prepared by one Sh. B.R. Sharma, Civil Engineer, (iii) with clear description(s), vis-a-vis, the location, of, the premises concerned, and, thereafter, in the application, it stands contended that upon leave being granted, vis-a-vis, the report of the Civil Engineer, (iv) thereupon, the learned Rent Controller, being facilitated, to pronounce, a, just decision, vis-a-vis, the afore ground of eviction, constituted in the rent petition. The apt application was contested by the tenant/petitioner herein, and, she contended that the mandate, of, Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-

(3.) However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, this Court cannot be coaxed, to, accept the aforesaid submission(s), as addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant, given (a) even if, assumingly the afore parlance, is, acquired by the afore statutory coinage, as, occurring, in, the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 of the CPC, and, also, hence meteing thereto, of a stricto sensu construction, may be warranted, (b) and, with the apposite document(s), rather not, in contemporaneity with the institution of the rent petition, being in existence, and, per se thereupon, the apt leave for its being tendered into evidence, rather was not accordable, (c) nonetheless, neither the factum of its subsequent preparation not its concomitant emergence, yet, cannot coax this Court, to, decline the apt leave for its being tendered into evidence, in its exercising, the apt discretion vested in it, under, the mandate engrafted in Order 7, Rule 14 of the CPC, (d) given its author, being averred in the apposite application, to be an expert, and, when hence the opinion of an expert, as, may emanate, even during the course of progress of a suit or of a rent petition, rather falls within the ambit of section 45, of, the Indian Evidence Act, (e) and, when there is no proviso engrafted, underneath the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 of the CPC, for, barring the opinion rendered by an expert, and, as embodied in his report, hence being permitted to be tendered into evidence, even when its emergence occurs subsequent, to, the institution of a petition or a suit, (f) thereupon, for want of afore statutory provisions, standing, borne in Order 7, Rule 14 of the CPC, for, hence, ousting the apt applicability, of the provisions, of section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, (g) therefrom, a firm conclusion, is, erectable qua hence the opinion or the report of an expert, even if emerges during the course of trial of a suit or of a rent petition, rather being permitted, to, with the leave of the court hence adduced into evidence or taken on record, (h) it being just and essential for resting the imperative factum probandum, as, in the extant case, is, the one appertaining to the apt bona fide requirement of the landlord, to, on anvil thereof, hence strive to receive an order of eviction of the tenant, from the demised premises.