Self-serving statements made by a party in a criminal case are inadmissible as evidence in a civil proceeding, as per Section 21 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT :

V. Gopalaswamy, J. - The present Petitioner, as the landlord of the house in question, has filed the H. R. C. Case No. 18 of 1981 u/s 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act praying for eviction of the present opposite party No. 1 from his house and its premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the house and further alleging that the opposite party" No. 1 is a wilful defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. The opposite party No. 1 had resisted the application for eviction on the ground that he was in occupation of the house in his own right after constructing it over the Government land and that, therefore, in respect of that house, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The House Rent Controller (opposite party No. 2) found that in respect of the house in question, the opposite party No. 1 was a tenant under the Petitioner and was a wilful defaulter in the matter of payment of rent and that the landlord required the house for his bona fide use and on the basis of such findings, passed the judgment dated 31-8-1982 in favour of the Petitioner directing the opposite party No. 1 to vacate the said house and the premises. Being aggrieved by that order, the opposite party No. 1 preferred the H. R. C. Appeal No. 12 of 1982 and the same was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayurbhanj (Opp. party No. 3) on the sole ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in respect of the house in dispute. The appellate Court did not consider it necessary to give its findings on the other issues. Hence, the present writ application is filed for setting aside the order of the appellate authority (Opp. party No. 3) dismissing the H. R. C. Case filed by the Petitioner.

2. Admittedly, the land over which the house in dispute stands belongs to the Government and there is no written agreement between the parties in evidence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The main issue which came up for decision before the House Rent Controller and the appellate authority is whether there was existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in respect of the house in question.

3. The opposite party No. 1 lodged the F. I. R. Ext. 2 on 15-10-1980, alleging that the Petitioner has trespassed into the house in question and bas committed mischief and on the basis of that F. I. R., G. R. Case No. 868 of 1980 was initiated against the Petitioner. On a perusal of the judgment dated 31-8-1982 of the House Rent Controller, it is seen that the admissions made by opposite party No. 1 in the F. I. R., Ext. 2, admitting that he was a tenant in respect of the disputed house, very much weighed with the trial Court in passing the judgment ill favour of the Petitioner directing the eviction of opposite party No. 1 from that house, as can be seen from the following observations in paragraph 5 of the judgment:

Ext. 2 is the F. I. R. which was lodged at Baripada Police Station by the O. P. himself on 15-10-1980 on the allegation that the Petitioner having trespassed into the disputed house committed mischief and created troubles in his possession. Said F.I.R. was reduced in to writing by p. w. 6 according to the direction of the then O.I.C./ Pratap Chandra Samal. P. w. 6 makes it clear in his evidence that he reduced the oral report of the O. P. into writing as per Ext. 2 and he read over and explained the contents thereof and the O. P. and after knowing the correctness of the contents signed the same. Not only from the evidence of p. w. 6 but also from the endorsement made by him in Ext. 2 it is abundantly clear that the copy of the said F.I. R. was delivered to the O. P. at that time P. w. 6 being a responsible Police Officer cannot be believed to have deposed lie particularly when he has taken oath to speak nothing but truth. It is also not conceivable that while Ext. 2 was reduced into writing at that time the Petitioner who was not present at