Point of law:
Secondary evidence, as a general rule is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence. If the original itself is found to be inadmissible through failure of the party, who files it to prove it to be valid, the same party is not entitled to introduce secondary evidence of its contents.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Kiran Kumar Arora, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The revision-applicant nos.1 & 2 have assailed the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Bareilly in SCC Suit No.7 of 2011 whereby the trial court has decreed the suit of the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent (plaintiff) instituted SCC Suit No.7 of 2011 contending inter alia that she is the owner of a shop and godown constructed over an area of 72.5 square meters situated in Shyamganj, Rile Godown, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') described at the foot of the plaint. She has let out the suit property to revision-applicant nos.1 & 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'applicants') on a monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- per month including taxes. The applicants have been carrying on business on the suit property in the name and style of M/s Saraswati Sales. The suit property was let out to applicants on 25.11.2008 for two years on the condition that entire rent of the suit property would be paid in advance by the applicants. The period of tenancy expired on 24.11.2010. The applicants were to vacate the suit property on 25.11.2010 after the expiry of the term of the tenancy. It is further averred that the applicants have not paid rent after 24.11.2010 nor they have vacated the suit property. Consequently, the respondent sent a notice by registered post terminating the tenancy which was duly served and delivered on applicants on 24.01.2011. By the said notice, respondent also claimed arrears of rent and mesne profit to the tune of Rs.37,500/- for the period from 25.02.2011 to 07.04.2011.

4. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the respondent prayed for a decree of eviction, arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,12,500/- and future mesne profit @ Rs.25,000/- per month.

5. In the written statement filed by the applicants, they averred that the respondent is the co-owner of the suit property since the suit property was purchased by the respondent alongwith Radheshyam Bhatiya and Smt. Prakashi Devi from Smt. Sadhna Devi by registered sale deed dated 05.05.2004. The applicants denied the rent of the suit property to be Rs.25,000/- per month. According to the applicants, rent of the suit property was Rs.2500/- and no rent was due on the date of institution of the suit. It was also pleaded that an agreement to sell was entered into on 25.11.2008 in respect of the suit property with the concurrence of the three co-owners of the suit property and applicants paid Rs.1 lac through cheque as advance. It was also averred that a sum of Rs.13 lac has been paid to the respondent up till 20.10.2010. The applicants are ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and purchase the suit property. The owners of the suit property became dishonest and refused to execute the sale deed according to the agreement to sell dated 15.12.2008.

6. The trial court based on the pleadings of the parties framed five issues. The learned counsel for the applicants has assailed the finding of the trial court on issue nos.1, 2 & 3, which reads as under:-

^^1- D;k T;ksfr HkkfV;k fookfnr laifRr dh lg Hkou Lokfeuh gS vkSj og Áfroknhx.k dh /kkjk 106 laifRr vUrj.k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr fdjk;snkjh lekIr dj ldrh gS\

2- D;k Áfroknhx.k fookfnr laifRr esa vadu 25]000@& Áfrekg ds fdjk;snkj Fks\

3- D;k Áfroknhx.k us fdjk;k vnk djus esa dksbZ O;frØe fd;k gS\**

7. On issue no.1, the trial court by placing reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Others Vs. Bhagvandei Agrawal through Legal Representatives & Others AIR 2004 SC 1321 held that the respondent is co-owner and suit is maintainable at the behest of the respondent. The trial court further held that since the photocopy of the agreement to sell was filed and the original was not filed, therefore, it is not admissible in evidence. It also noticed the state