JUDGMENT :- This is a defendants' appeal. A suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages as well as ejectment of the defendants was filed by the respondent, inter alia, on the grounds that the defendant No.1 had committed default in making payment of rent and had also caused nuisance in the accommodation in suit. The defendants contested the suit denying these allegations. The defendant No.1 alleged that he had paid a sum of Rs.500/- to the plaintiffs son on 13th June, 1966 and had further remitted a sum of Rs.150/- by money order on 3rd October, 1966 thus covering the rent for the period from 1st December, 1965 to 30th September, 1966. He placed reliance on the entries in his account books in support of these payments. The validity of the notice for ejectment was also challenged.

2. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants filed an appeal which was also dismissed. Both the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the defendant No.1 appellant was the tenant, that he had not paid a sum of Rs.500/- as alleged and as such had committed default in making payment of rent. The notice to quit was also held to be valid by both the Courts below. Aggrieved, the defendants have come up in second appeal.

3. At the outset it was urged on behalf of the defendants appellants that the payment of Rs.500/- towards rent was proved by the evidence of the defendant Jai Narain as also of Khatai Lal, who was the munim of the firm Madho Prasad Badri Narain, and that it finds support from the relevant entries in the account books of the defendants which were alleged to have been kept in the ordinary course of business. The bahikhata entries referred to were marked as Exs.A-1, A-7 to A-14 and on the basis of these documents it was submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act the statement of Jai Narain as also of Khatai Lal were corroborated. It was also urged that these two persons in their depositions corroborated the relevant entries made in the account books. The learned Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on certain decided cases in regard to the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as under:

"Entries in books of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability."

4. In order to apply the provisions of Section 34 of the Act it would be necessary to establish that the account books were regularly kept in the ordinary course of business. The entries made in such account books would then become relevant and might be considered along with the other evidence to charge any person with liability but these entries alone would not be sufficient to fasten any liability on any person. The entries in the account books are, therefore, merely corroborative and primary evidence is always needed to prove the transaction mentioned therein. It appears that the entries in the account books were not proved according to law. I was taken through the entire statement of Jai Narain. He has nowhere referred to the particular entries in his account books in regard to the transaction in question. He has satisfied himself by stating that the account books were maintained by him in regular course of business but that by itself was not sufficient for bringing the case within the scope and ambit of Section 34 of the Evidence Act. Section 34 makes the particular entries in the account books relevant. The entry relevant to the payment of Rs.500/- to the son of the plaintiff should, therefore, have been proved without which it was not possible to place reliance on the account books. There is one more difficulty for the defendant in this respect. The account books obviously were not in current use. He should, therefore, have filed the original account books and then proved the relevant entries acc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document