Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Kamal Narain Kapoor - Appellant
Versus
Sh Uma Shankar Kapoor & Ors. - Respondents
CM(M) 1998 of 2023
Decided On : 12-12-2023
Rent Agreement - Civil Suit - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Order XVI Rule 6, CPC - Section 151, CPC - Section 165, Indian Evidence Act
Fact of the Case:
The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dismissing an application to summon the original rent agreement dated 08.08.1973 before the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alleged rent agreement was suspicious and not genuine, and the defendant's explanation for non-production was unsatisfactory. The court dismissed the petition as the existence of the alleged agreement was doubtful and allowing the application would only delay the process.
Issues: The main issue was the authenticity and non-production of the alleged rent agreement dated 08.08.1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the non-production and suspicious nature of the alleged rent agreement led to the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the Trial Court was requested to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.
Based on the provided legal document, the court emphasized the importance of the authenticity and proper non-production of crucial documents, specifically the rent agreement dated 08.08.1973. The court found that the alleged agreement was suspicious and not genuine, and the explanation for its non-production was unsatisfactory. As a result, the court dismissed the petition, noting that allowing the application to summon the original rent agreement would only cause unnecessary delay in the proceedings (!) (!) .
The court also observed that the photocopy of the agreement was only produced for the first time in 2023, and the chain of custody was unclear, with no evidence that the original agreement was in the custody of the landlord or defendant no.3 (!) (!) (!) . The absence of the original document and the suspicious nature of the photocopy led the court to conclude that the existence of the agreement was doubtful (!) .
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the defendant’s explanation for non-production was inadequate, and the document's suspicious nature justified dismissing the application to summon it (!) (!) . The court also noted that allowing such an application at this stage would only delay the proceedings and that the overall circumstances did not support the genuineness of the document (!) (!) .
In summary, the court’s decision underscores that if a crucial document's authenticity is in doubt and its non-production is unexplained or inadequately justified, the court may dismiss related applications to prevent unnecessary delays and to uphold the integrity of the proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 62853/2023 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 62852/2023
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the A.D.J. (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (`Trial Court') in CS No. 20463/2016, titled as Uma Shankar Kapoor v. Kamal Narain Kapoor, dismissing an application filed by the Petitioner under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act to summon the official record keeper or trustee of the landlord Trust i.e., defendant no.3 with the original rent agreement dated 08.08.1973 before the Trial Court.
2. The Petitioner is defendant no.1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs. Respondent No.5 is defendant no.2. Respondent No.6 is defendant no.3.
2.1. The civil suit has been filed for possession on the assertion that the plaintiffs along with defendant nos. 1 and 2 are co-tenants in the suit property.
Defendant no.3 is the trust, which has admittedly let out the suit property to `Daya Shankar and Sons'. Late Mr. Daya Shankar Kapoor was the father of the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2. The tenancy in the suit property is governed by Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
2.2. The dispute between the parties is whether `Daya Shankar and Sons' is an HUF of Mr. Daya Shankar Kapoor as its Karta; or a partnership firm in which Mr. Daya Shankar Kapoor was a partner.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner i.e., defendant no.1 states that the rent agreement dated 08.08.1973 is a material document and the date of 08.08.1973 finds due mention in the written statement.
3.1. He states that the date of 08.08.1973 is also mentioned in the affidavit of late Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia who was proposed as a witness on behalf of the landlord Trust i.e., original defendant no. 3. He states however, Mr. Shiv Kumar Jatia could not step into the witness box and tender his evidence affidavit as he was initially unwell and then passed away.
3.2. He states that the Trial Court has however, failed to consider this application on account of the orders passed by the High Court on 26.09.2023 and 09.10.2023 in CM(M) 1375/2019.
3.3. He states that the Petitioner can neither confirm nor deny before this Court whether the original of the rent agreement dated 08.08.1973 is available in the custody of the Trust i.e., defendant no.3, however, there is a presumption since they are the landlord; they would have the original of this agreement.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 i.e., the plaintiffs oppose the present petition and states that the alleged rent agreement dated 08.08.1973 was not placed on record before the Trial Court with the written statement.
4.1. He states that the photocopy of the alleged rent agreement has been placed on record before the High Court in CM(M) 1375/2019 for the first time on 21.11.2023.
4.2. He states that the evidence of the Petitioner i.e., defendant no. 1 stood concluded on 14.05.2018 and thereafter, the matter has remained pending for last five (5) years due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the Petitioner herein.
4.3. He states that there is no dispute that `Daya Shankar and Sons' was the tenant in the suit premises and the reliance on the alleged rent agreement dated 08.08.1973 is of no consequence. He states that the issue is whether it was an HUF or a partnership firm.
5. Respondent No.5 i.e., defendant no.2 supports the contention of the Petitioner and adopts his arguments.
6. This Court has considered the submission of the parties and perused the record.
7. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 concluded their evidence. The Trial Court vide order dated 06.05.2019 closed the right of the defendant no. 3 to lead further evidence as no witness on behalf of defendant no.3 was present. The order dated 06.05.2019 was challenged by the Petitioner
The authenticity and non-production of crucial documents can impact the court's decision and may lead to the dismissal of relevant petitions.
The best evidence available to deny the possession of the tenant should be produced, and failure to question the admissibility of crucial documents may preclude raising factual issues in an appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit was maintainable under the Indian Trusts Act, as the defendant failed to prove the absence of a jural relationship between the partie....
Ownership issues cannot be adjudicated in eviction suits; certified copies of public documents are admissible as evidence.
Ownership issues cannot be determined in eviction suits, and certified copies of public documents are admissible in evidence.
The Court applied the provisions of Order XV-A of the CPC to direct the deposit of rent based on the registered Rent Agreement, emphasizing the importance of upholding written agreements between part....
Proceeding in Rent Act is of summary nature, wherein jural relationship of landlord and tenant is to be taken note.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1968, specifically Section 14(1)(a) and (j) to determine the existence of the ....
The definition of 'Landlord' under the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 16 of 2021 includes trustees, and procedural objections must be raised in the written statement rather than through preliminary applicatio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
