MANOHAR LAL SHARMA Vs. JEEVRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.2014 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Sikar whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to exhibit the partnership dissolution deed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Jeevraj Singh, the respondent No. 1 -plaintiff, had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of respondents No. 2 to 5 from the shop which belonged to him. He sought eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent amount, and on the ground of subletting. With regard to subletting, it was pleaded that Dr. Nauratam Dadhich (respondent No. 3) had taken the said shop on rent in the name of his son, Ankit Dadhich (respondent No. 2), who was minor at that time. The business in the shop was carried out in the partnership of Ankit Dadhich, and one Amit Kumar. However, from October, 1990, the defendants No. 1 to 4 (respondents No. 2 to 5 before this court) started a business in the name and style of "Amit X -ray & Laboratories". Since 1994, the defendant No. 5 -petitioner is carrying on business alone in the shop. However, the respondents No. 2 to 5 informed the landlord that the petitioner happens to be merely their employee. But since 1995, the landlord became slightly suspicious when the petitioner began asking that the receipt of rental amount be issued in his name. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed a suit for permanent injunction wherein he claimed that he is a tenant in the suit shop. It is upon receiving summons in the said suit that the landlord realized that the petitioner now claims to be a tenant although originally the shop was rented out to Dr. Nauratam Dadhich, respondent No. 3 before this court. It is in these circumstances that the landlord submitted a suit for eviction on the ground of subletting and non -payment of rent.

(3.) MR . Ajeet Bhandari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the logic given by the learned Magistrate is clearly untenable. For, according to the learned Magistrate, since the plaintiff was not confronted with the said document, the document cannot be marked now as an exhibit.