Electronic Evidence--Requirement of certificate under Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act is procedural and not mandatory and can be relaxed by Court, wherever interest of justice so justifies

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Lisa Gill, J.:- The petitioner/tenant is aggrieved of judgment dated 12.04.2018 passed by Appellate Authority, Faridabad, whereby judgment dated 18.03.2016 passed by Rent Controller, Faridabad has been set aside. Rent petition filed by the respondent/landlord was dismissed but the learned Appellate Authority while setting aside the said decision has ordered eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the demised premises.

2. Brief facts as narrated in the petition filed by the landlord under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 are that the demised premises i.e. the shop in question was taken on lease on 01.01.1973 by the present petitioner Vinod Kumar on a monthly rent of Rs.125/- which was later enhanced to Rs.145/-. Earlier, a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant filed by respondent No.1 was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 08.06.1984. Appeal preferred by the present petitioner was also dismissed on 06.12.1984. Revision petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 25.01.1985. However, the matter was compromised during the pendency of Special Leave Petition before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Petitioner undertook to pay rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.1985. Present petition was filed on the ground that the petitioner failed to pay arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.09.2008 to 30.04.2011 besides having sublet the demised premises without consent of the landlord to respondent No.2/Anil Kumar, who was averred to be running his timber business under the name and style of ‘Mittal Timbers, Sihi Gate, Ballabgarh’. Personal bonafide necessity was also pleaded besides stating that the demised premises were unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Arrears of rent were deposited by the petitioner. Thus, the said ground no longer survived. Learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition while concluding that the landlord failed to prove subletting of the premises or that they were unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was observed that the photographs produced by the landlord, though admitted by the petitioner cannot be relied upon as there was non-compliance of Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act (‘Evidence Act’ for short).

3. Appeal was filed by the landlord, which was allowed. Learned Appellate Authority ordered eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises on the ground of the premises being sublet to respondent No.2. It is observed by learned Appellate Authority that the petitioner/tenant admitted photographs of the demised premises which reflected timber business being carried on therein. Therefore, subletting of the premises to the petitioner’s brother was concluded to have been proved.

4. Aggrieved therefrom, present petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that subletting of the premises has wrongly been concluded to be proved on the basis of photographs placed on record by the landlord. It is contended that the certificate in terms of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act has not been produced. Therefore, the said photographs are clearly inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and others, [2014(5) Law Herald (SC) 3677 : 2014(5) Law Herald (P&H) 4588 (SC)] : 2014 (10) SCC 473. Moreover, so called admission on the part of the present petitioner is not relevant as the said photographs are not proved on record. It is, thus, prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and impugned judgment dated 12.04.2018 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Faridabad be set aside and judgment dated 18.03.2016 passed by learned Rent Controller, Faridabad be upheld.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/caveator refutes the said averments while submitting that both the learned Courts below have arrived at a logical conclusion after proper appreciation and consideration of the evidence on record.

7. I have hear