LACHHAMANDAS Vs. DEEPCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from a shop situated at Dargah Bazar, Ajmer and which bears No. A. M. C. VII/421. The shop was rented out by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- per month. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the plaintiff required the suit shop for his bonafide personal necessity, as the plaintiff's son Gheesulal was to settled in business of fancy stores in that shop. The tenancy was determined by a notice dated 7-6-1967.

(2.) THE defendant admitted the tenancy. He also admitted the receipt of the notice terminating the tenancy, but he disputed that the plaintiff had any bonafide need for the suit shop. He asserted that the plaintiff was desirous to increase the rent and has consequently filed the suit with this oblique motive.

(3.) IT will, however, be observed that this had to be done with caution. IT has been observed in R. M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra (5) that tape recorded conversation is admissible provided first the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue; secondly, there is identification of the voice; and thirdly, the accuracy of the tape recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing the tape-record. IT was observed in this case that a contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible u/s. 8 of the Evidence Act. IT is res gestae. IT is also comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident. IT was pointed out that when a Court permits a tape recording to be played over it is acting on real evidence if it treats the intention of the words to be relevant and genuine. The fact that tape recorded conversation can be altered is also borne in mind by the Court while admitting it in evidence.