JUDGMENT

Manoj Bajaj, J. (Oral) - Landlord-Ravinder Singh @ Jassi has preferred this civil revision to challenge the order dated 10.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Khanna, in civil suit No.252/2020, whereby the application filed by respondent (Tenant) seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence relating to the rent note dated 18.04.1995 was accepted.

2. The facts in brief leading to the petition are that plaintiff (respondent) filed a suit for possession against the defendant (petitioner) in respect of a shop detailed in para 1 of the plaint (Annexure P-2) by invoking Section 6 Specific Relief Act, 1963 and pleaded that on 18.04.1995, Sawinder Singh father of the plaintiff took the shop on rent from Sohan Singh, father of the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs.800/- and a rent note was also executed between them with a clause of yearly enhancement @ Rs.20/- p.m. Ever since, the commencement of tenancy, rent was being paid regularly to the landlord and after demise of the original parties to the rent deed, the tenancy continued, as the rent tendered by the plaintiff was regularly accepted by defendant and present rate of rent is Rs.1280/- p.m.

3. The shop was being used for sale/purchase of footwears and the plaintiff had also been paying the electricity charges regularly and the said connection is in the name of grand-father of the defendant. In the year 2018, the respondent/plaintiff constructed another shop and shifted his business there, but kept on using the shop in question as godown by stocking the footwears. As per pleadings, on 06.07.2020, the defendant in connivance with un-identified persons broke the locks of shop and had stolen the material lying therein and upon receiving the said information from Chowkidar Jagar Singh, a case FIR No.0097 dated 07.07.2020, under Sections 380, 457, 447 and 120-B IPC at Police Station City-2, Khanna was lodged by plaintiff against defendant. Through the suit, the plaintiff has prayed for restoring the possession back to the tenant and in support of his plaint, the copy of rent deed, electricity bills and receipts etc were attached.

4. The suit is being contested by the petitioner/defendant by way of filing the written statement (Annexure P-3), who has raised the preliminary objections relating to maintainability, concealment of material facts, lack of cause of action, locus standi etc., and on merits has flatly denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The registration of FIR at the instance of the plaintiff is admitted, but it is explained that the same is false and defendant has been falsely implicated. In the end, it is prayed that the suit be dismissed.

5. After completion of pleadings and framing of issues, plaintiff in his evidence, tendered affidavits of Jaspal Singh (PW1/A) and Gulshan Kumar (PW2/A) Annexures P-4 and P-5, respectively and thereafter, moved an application dated 14.12.2021 (Annexure P-6) seeking direction to the defendant to produce the original rent note dated 18.04.1995 and in the alternative, prayed for permission to adduce secondary evidence relating to the said document. The said application was also contested by petitioner by filing reply (Annexure P-7), but the trial Court vide impugned order dated 10.05.2022 proceeded to accept the prayer of the respondent/plaintiff and allowed him to lead secondary evidence relating to the rent note dated 18.04.1995. Hence this revision petition.

6. Learned counsel has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as photocopy of a document is not permitted to be adduced by way of secondary evidence. He has further submitted that no such plea that the original rent note is not in possession of the plaintiff was pleaded in the plaint, therefore, after commencement of the trial, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to set up this ground to adduce the secondary evidence. He submits that the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge, (Jr. Divn.), Khanna, District Ludhiana i