Relevance of documentary evidence in establishing landlord-tenant relationship.

1. - This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff Shiv Ratan Gupta against the order dated 24.2.2009 passed by the learned Dist. Judge, Balotra in Appeal No. 3/1996 - Shiv Ratan Gupta v. Ram Gopal whereby the appellate court rejected the application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiffs along with which the plaintiffs - appellants filed agreement dated 8.5.1968 by which he could establish his landlord - tenant relationship with the defendant Ramgopal.

2. The case appears to be arising between the close relatives Sunder Devi and Achuki Devi being daughters of original owner Meghraj are now represented by Shiv Ratan adopted son of Sunder Devi and Sita Ram adopted son of Achuki Devi, as both of them, daughters of Meghraj died issueless. Both these adopted son filed the present eviction suit against Ram Gopal. The defendant Ram Gopal claimed to be adopted son of Meghraj himself.

3. The learned trial Court in the present eviction suit decided the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant against the landlords Shivratan and Sita Ram, both of whom have filed the present eviction suit and the learned trial Court decided this issue against them that they could not be termed as landlord qua the defendant Ramgaopal.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiffs wanted to produce the said document viz. Agreement dated 8.5.1968 with a request to take the same on record and urged that before the learned trial Court below the said document was to be produced as Ex.D/2 with the list of documents given by the defendant Ram Gopal himself in his written statement. With the help of the said document, the plaintiffs could establish their landlord-tenant relationship and therefore, the said document was relevant to the controversy in hand and the same deserves to be taken on record. The plaintiffs also referred to earlier criminal trial in the FIR filed by Shivratan and Sita Ram against Ramgopal, which ultimately resulted in his acquittal on the basis of said document dated 8.5.1968 itself and therefore, the plaintiffs claimed that the said document was of relevance and was admitted by Ram Gopal and deserved to be taken on record. However, the learned appellate Court by impugned order dated 24.10.2009 has rejected the said application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C.

5. Controverting the submsisions of the learned counsel Mr.A.K. Jain for the petitioner, Mr. L.K.Purohit urged that the said document if at all it existed at the relevant point of time was very well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs much prior to institution of the present ejectment suit in the year 1986 and therefore the plaintiffs having failed to produce the same during the trial, could not be permitted to do so as during the appellate proceedings, before the Appellate Court. He also submitted that the said document does not create any landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and therefore, the decision of appeal does not depend upon said document and hence the learned appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order of the learned Appellate Court of Dist. Judge, Balotra dated 24.2.2009, this court is satisfied that the learned Appellate Court of Dist. Judge, Balotra has erred in not taking on record the said relevant document dated 8.5.1968 which, prima facie, refers to agreement between the two daughters of Meghraj, namely, Sunder Devi and Achuki Devi, whose adopted sons, Shiv Ratan and Sitaram have jointly instituted the present ejection suit. Whether the plaintiffs are able to prove this document and whether they are able to prove relationship of landlord - tenant on the basis of same or not is a question which can arise only if the said document is once taken on record and parties are allowed to prove the same in accordance with law.

7. In the backdrop of the findings of the learned trial Court decidi