The importance of evidence and documents in determining the tenant's claim.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for declaration that he is tenant in the shop in dispute. According to plaintiff , the defendant-respondent took the rent @ 350/-per month upto 30.09.1997, but thereafter, the defendant refused to accept the rent. On 111.1997, the defendant tried to take possession of the property illegally, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injection against the defendant. The defendant submitted written statement and stated that plaintiff is not his tenant and the suit property was let out to plaintiff s brother Amar Chand in the year 1969, particularly, on 28.03.1969. The suit property was vacated by Amar Chand and Amar Chand handed over the possession of the suit property to the defendant on 011.1997. He also executed a deed handing over possession of the property. The defendant submitted that on 110.1997, the plaintiff forcibly encroached upon the suit shop and filed this suit to protect his illegal possession.

3. The trial Court framed the issue whether the plaintiff is tenant in the suit shop or not and whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of injunction. The plaintiff himself came in witness box, but did not produce any other witness. The defendant himself gave his statement and produced 6 witnesses. The plaintiff produced the registration certificate of the firm and also produced the account books to prove the payment of rent to the defendant and also produced the information, which he furnished to the Registrar of the Firms for the purpose of change in constitution of the firm and for renewal of the registration etc. The trial Court after considering the evidence, partly allowed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff failed to prove himself to be tenant in the suit shop, but the defendant cannot dispossess the plaintiff without following due process of law. The Judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 211.1999 was challenged by the plaintiff by preferring appeal and defendant submitted cross-objection. The appeal and the cross-objections were dismissed by the first appellate Court by Judgment dated 29.08.2001, hence, this second appeal by the plaintiff .

4. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, after the decision of this suit, the defendant filed suit for possession in Civil Court against the plaintiff and in that suit the trial Court recorded finding that originally Amar Chand was the tenant in the suit shop and, thereafter, plaintiff was also inducted in the firm as partner and presently, the plaintiff is in occupation of the suit shop. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the present defendant-respondent filed against the appellant-plaintiff of this case and the Judgment of that Court is relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal.

5. According to learned Counsel for the appellant the appellant-plaintiff took the premises on rent on 07.09.1978 and he is in continuous possession of the suit shop whereas the story setup by the defendant is concocted story that the defendant-landlord took possession of the suit shop from plaintiff s brother Amar Chand and Amar Chand was tenant in the shop. It is also submitted that the plaintiff produced the documentary evidence, which clearly shows that plaintiff is doing business in the suit shop. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the defendant-respondents subsequently filed suit has also been dismissed by the trial Court, but the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that against the dismissal of the defendants-respondents suit for eviction of plaintiff-appellant, the respondent has preferred appeal, which is pending.

6. I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant. So far as any effect of decision given in subsequently filed suit is concerned, that is not relevant at all because the findin