SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(P&H) 3941

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Vipan Sodhi - Appellant
Versus
Kola Ram - Respondent
CR No. 5225 of 2007 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-09-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Sunil Chadha, Sr, Advocate with Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate, for the Petitioners; Ashish Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate, for the Respondents

The judgment established that non-production of documents under Order 12, Rule 8 CPC does not necessarily warrant adverse inference, and the provisions of Order 12, Rule 8 CPC should be examined in the context of the case.

Headnote:

Non-production of documents - Eviction petition - Order 12, Rule 8 CPC - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]

Fact of the Case:

The landlords filed an eviction petition against the tenant for subletting the premises without written consent. The lower court ordered eviction based on non-production of documents as demanded in the notice under Order 12, Rule 8 CPC, but the Appellate Authority reversed the decision.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the non-production of documents under Order 12, Rule 8 CPC did not warrant adverse inference against the tenant, and the landlord failed to prove subletting or parting of possession.

Issues: The main issue was whether non-production of documents as demanded in the notice under Order 12, Rule 8 CPC warranted adverse inference.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provisions of Order 12, Rule 8 CPC regarding non-production of documents and its effect were different from those under Order 11, and the Appellate Authority rightly refused to draw adverse inference against the tenant.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the Court upheld the findings of fact by the Appellate Authority.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - CM-13834-CII-2018

Prayer in the application is for substituting the name of the applicants in place of landlords-petitioners. The prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, the applicants are substituted in place of original petitioners and the application is allowed.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants-petitioners submit that since the property has been transferred, therefore, he will not press the petition on the ground of personal necessity, however, he would be press this petition on the ground of subletting of the premises in question without written consent of the landlord. It will be significant to note here that respondent No.1 is a tenant whereas respondent No.2 is his brother whereas respondent No.3 is a Cooperative Industrial Society Ltd. having tenant as its Principal Incharge.

Main Case

3. Landlord-petitioners are in the revision petition against the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority resulting in dismissal of the eviction petition while reversing the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller.

4. The question which is required to be answered is:-

    "Whether non-production of documents as demanded in the notice under Order 12, Rule 8 CPC, the Court is bound to draw adverse inference?"

    5. It is pleaded case of the predecessor of the applicants that respondent No.1 has sublet the property in question to respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 is running a business having complete and effective control over the same. Respondent No.1 has started carrying business in sale and purchase of the fishes from the fish market. It is further pleaded case of the petitioners that respondent No.1 has also sublet the premises to respondent No.3 which is a Cooperative Industrial Society and respondent No.1 is himself an Incharge of the Society. It is further asserted that respondent No.2 is managing the aforesaid society. The allegations made in the petition were denied. Respondent No.1 further denied that he has sublet the premises to respondent No.2. Respondent No.1, however, admitted that he is also into the business of sale and purchase of the fishes in the fish market in partnership. It was further pleaded that respondent No.3, a Cooperative Industrial Society is running its business from other premises of building No.1430-XI owned by Kuldeep Singh son of Kartar Singh.

    6. During the pendency of the petition, the landlords served a notice to the respondents demanding the following documents:-

      "1. Memorandum of Articles of Association of M/s Mattu Furniture PROD. W/s Cooperative INDI Society Ltd., Katra Sher Singh, Amritsar. The Rules & Regulations of the aforesaid Company-Original Registration Certificate or its duly attested copy of the aforesaid Company, name of all the office bearers inclusive of Directors, Management Board etc. of this company, Account Books of this concern, Account No. and the name of the Bank where the company is maintaining the bank account. Bill Books, Accounts Books and ledgers of this concern, and copies of the income-tax returns and the orders passed thereon from the date of inception till today and permanent account number allotted by the Income Tax Authorities to this concern.

      2. Account Books, Bill Books, Income Tax Returns, Ledgers, bank account statement of the business carried on in the shop in question and the balance sheet w.e.f. 1.4.98 onwards till date.

      3. Copies of the income-tax returns individually filed w.e.f. 1.4.98 till date and copy of orders passed thereon and Income Tax Number allotted by the Income Tax Office."

      7. The tenant in response, stated that since the aforesaid society is not running its business from the shop in dispute, therefore, these documents were not required to be produced.

      8. During the evidence, the landlord summoned official from the bank where Cooperative Industrial Society has opened its account and brought on record account opening form, list of members of the

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top