BHANWARLAL Vs. RAMAVTAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of mesne profit against the petitioner alleging inter alia that the shop in-question, which is situated at Kandoi Bajar Merta City was let out to the petitioner @ Rs. 250/- per month. The present controversy arose out of an application moved by the petitioner under Section 90 of Evidence Act, 1872 for taking presumption regarding correctness of the rent-note (Annex.9), which was apparently executed on 01.4.1965. Counsel for the petitioner Shri OM Mehta submits that the document i.e. rent-note, was executed on 01.4.1965 and is more than 30 years old. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the document aforesaid has been marked as exhibit subject to just objections to be taken by the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if presumption of its correctness is taken under Section 90 of Evidence Act, then also that shall be subject to rebuttal and shall in no manner prejudice the case of respondent. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that if the application is not accepted under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, then the very purpose of having provisions like Section 90 of the Evidence Act shall be frustrated. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakhi Baruah & Ors. v. Padma Kanta Kalita & Ors., reported in AIR 1996 SC 1253; the relevant portion whereof reads as follows :

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent justified the impugned order on the ground that the documents in-question are forged one and, therefore, any presumption regarding their genuineness shall cause serious prejudice to him.