The court held that a Rent Controller must allow applications for document admission before assessing their relevance, prioritizing fair trial over procedural delays.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

How at times a desperate attempt to decide a case expeditiously actually results in the delay of the disposal of the case is best reflected in the instant case.

2. The petitioner is the tenant under respondents No. 1 to 3 and he was facing a petition for eviction on the ground that the respondents require the premises for the purpose of re-building and reconstruction, impairment of value and utility of the premises, unfit and unsafe and also on the ground that the petitioner has sublet the premises in favour of the proforma respondent.

3. According to the petitioner, a joint petition was filed in respect of two shops alleging therein that partition has been made by the petitioner and now one shop has been converted into two shops.

4. The petitioner contested the said petition by filing a reply wherein it has been alleged that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. It is urged that the petitioner has taken two different shops on rent on different dates vide two different agreements executed by Smt. Surinder Kaur, who is the land lady/owner of the said shop. One shop was taken on rent by the petitioner in his individual capacity and the other shop was taken by the firm M/s Ganpati Chaudhary Sales Corporation.

5. Alongwith the reply, the petitioner also filed attested copy of Agreement dated 01.02.2006 qua shop No. 1 situated on the right side towards scandal point allegedly executed between Smt. Surinder Kaur and M/s Ganpati Chaudhary Sales Corporation through the petitioner and the other Agreement dated 27.03.2007 between Surinder Kaur and the petitioner in his individual capacity qua shop No. 2 on the left side towards the H.P. Tourism Lift.

6. Not only this, the receipts of the payment of rent to the landlady Smt. Surinder Kaur was also filed alongwith the reply and other relevant documents in order to support the contention raised by the petitioner.

7. After the issue in the case was struck, the respondents led the evidence and subsequently the case was fixed for the evidence of the petitioner. Thereafter, some of the witnesses of the petitioner had been examined and it is during the course of evidence that the petitioner filed the applications i.e. one under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and other under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

8. It was averred in the application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the CPC that in order to prove the defence raised by the petitioner, he wanted to file original agreement dated 27.03.2007, copy whereof, had already been filed alongwith the reply.

9. In addition to the same, he also placed on record various rent receipts since 08.11.2009 upto 16.01.2019 (in original), which according to him were required to be filed to show that the shop was let out by Smt. Surinder Kaur and the rent was being paid till date to her. Further certain photographs dated 14.11.2018 qua the shop let out by the owners adjoining the premises in dispute for the purpose of selling wine, liquor and for running ‘Ahata’ were required to be filed to show that on the one hand the respondents were alleging that the building is in dilapidated condition and requires rebuilding and reconstruction and on the other hand shop was being let out to various persons by the owner. Certain other documents pertaining to letters dated 26.02.2019 as well as 02.02.2019 were also placed on record alongwith the receipt issued by the Municipal Corporation.

10. No reply to the said application was filed by the respondents.

11. In addition to the aforesaid application, an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was also filed in order to prove the contents of Agreement dated 01.02.2006.

12. Both these applications, as observed above, came to be dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, constraining the tenant to file the instant petition.

13. I have gone through the impugned order and find that the learned Rent Controll