Ownership issues cannot be adjudicated in eviction suits; certified copies of public documents are admissible as evidence.

Order :

(NUPUR BHATI, J.)

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15591/2022)

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu by which the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 read with Section 151 of CPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner for eviction from the suit shop and recovery of rent and damages. It was inter alia stated in the plaint that the petitioner took the suit shop on rent on monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. The defendant-petitioner initially paid rent up to 31.12.2013 and remaining rent has not been paid despite demand. The respondent, then, served a 15 days' notice dated 24.04.2015 for termination of the tenancy. The said notice was served but despite this petitioner-defendant has not vacated the suit shop nor handed over possession of the same to the plaintiff-respondent.

3. The petitioner-defendant submitted a written statement to the plaint and denied the averments as made in the plaint. The petitioner-defendants stated that no shop of the plaintiff-respondent is on rent with him. He also denied that he paid rent upto 31.12.2013 and when the plaintiff-respondent is not owner of the premises then he is not tenant of plaintiff-respondent and plaintiff has no right to terminate the tenancy. The petitioner- defendant also denied receiving any notice dated 24.04.2015. It was further stated that respondent-plaintiff has a shop in Bidasar town since the time of his father which was taken on rent of Rs. 111/- per month in the year 1975. During the life time of Lunga Ram rent @ 111/- per month was being paid to him. The shop which was taken on rent by him on rent from Lunga Ram is in his use and occupation. Plaintiff-respondent is not landlord of defendant-petitioner and defendant-petitioner is not tenant of the plaintiff. Therefore, vacant possession of the shop in question cannot be handed over to plaintiff. The defendant-petitioner also denied outstanding rent of Rs. 16,000/- or any other amount or the entitlement to recover any amount from him. The defendant petitioner prayed that since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant, the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this count. It was also prayed that suit property being not belonging to plaintiff-respondent he has no right to file the present suit.

4. The learned trial court has taken on record sale deed dated 31.05.1995 and gift deed dated 22.11.2013 after that petitioner- defendant moved an application under order 11 Rule 12 and 14 r/ w section 151 CPC and prayed that the sale deed dated 31.05.1995 executed between Basant Shekhani and his power of attorney holder Kamal Devi and Smt. Anshu has sold the property to Saroj Devi and prior to execution of sale deed dated 31-05- 1995 the said land was purchased by Late Bhanwari Devi by registered sale deed dated 22.04.1963. The petitioner filed an application under Order 11, Rule 14 & 15 read with Section 151 CPC while indicating that the learned court on the application of the plaintiff-respondent has taken on record the sale deed dated 31.05.1995, but the plaintiff-respondent has deliberately withheld the sale deed dated 22.04.1963 and the death certificate of Bhanwari Devi and plaintiff/respondent has also not produced the certificate of legal heirs of said Bhanwari Devi. The petitioner- defendant requested to the learned trial court that sale deed dated 22.04.1963 and death certificate or certificate of legal heirs of Bhanwari Devi are the relevant and important documents. The defendant petitioner filed above mentioned application but respondent/plaintiff did not submit reply.

5. The learned trial Court after considering the facts of the case as well as law applicable to the case, passed the order dated 19.04.202