Point of Law: Proceeding in Rent Act is of summary nature, wherein jural relationship of landlord and tenant is to be taken note.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Instant Revision Petition, under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rent Act’), has been preferred against judgment dated 9.9.2019, passed by Appellate Authority-II, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Rent Appeal No.1-S/13(b) of 2017, titled as Ramesh Kumar v. Leela Devi, whereby order dated 25.11.2016, passed by Rent Controller, Court No.2, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.39/2 of 2015/2014, titled as Leela Devi v. Ramesh, has been upheld, and also against order dated 9.9.2019, passed by the Appellate Authority in CMP No.53-S/6 of 2018, filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for production/leading additional evidence, whereby the application has been dismissed.

2. It has been contended on behalf of tenant petitioner that there is neither written agreement nor rent receipt or any other document to substantiate the oral claim of the landlord-respondent that the petitioner was her tenant, whereas it has been admitted by the respondent that the petitioner has constructed his own house and shop in Khasra No.135 and, thus, Rent Petition was not maintainable for want of material/ documentary evidence. It has been submitted that oral statement of respondent has been rebutted by the petitioner by oral statement and, therefore, oral claim of the respondent is not sufficient to establish her claim as landlord. Further that the landlord-respondent has placed on record copy of Jamabandi for the year 1964-65 (Ex. PW-1/B), wherein Khasra number of the premises, in reference, has been mentioned as 347 min, which is not sufficient to prove relation of landlord and tenant and, thus, both the Courts below have committed a material irregularity and illegality by considering the respondent as landlord. To substantiate this plea, reliance has been placed on Rajendra Tiwary versus Basudeo Prasad and another, (2002) 1 SCC 90; and Madan Mohan Singh v. Ved Prakash Arya, (2021) 5 SCC 456.

3. By referring Jamabandi of year 2010-22, it has been contended on behalf of tenant that respondent has not been shown in possession of the premises in reference and, therefore, her claim as landlord, on the basis of old record is not tenable for presumption of truth attached with the revenue record.

4. It has been further argued on behalf of tenant that in view of provisions of Order VII Rule 3 CPC description of the property, sufficient to identity it, was required to be placed on record, but the landlord has failed to do so and, therefore, the Courts below have committed a mistake of law by allowing the eviction petition filed by the landlord-respondent.

5. It has been argued that an application filed by petitioner, under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, before the Appellate Authority, has been wrongly rejected as it was necessary to place on record the documents indicating that respondent was never linked as owner or as possessor of the property in the new entries of revenue record, so as to clarify the ambiguity and to show exact location of the property for which eviction petition was filed.

6. Relying upon pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Uttaradi Mutt v. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, (2018) 10 SCC 484, it has been contended that documents proposed to be placed on record, as additional evidence, are Government documents, i.e. revenue record and copy of order passed under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which would be necessary to show that respondent has approached the Court without title and possession of the land in reference and, thus, was not entitled to maintain the Rent Petition, and the additional evidence sought to the adduced was necessary to remove the cloud of doubt over the case and the proposed additional evidence has a direct and important bearing upon the main issue in the petition and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that the application should have been allowed.

7. Learned counsel for the l