Mathur, J. --1. This writ petition has been preferred by the defendant tenant/petitioner Jogendra Singh Pal, a tenant inducted in the premises owned by the plaintiffs-respondents Omprakash Gupta, Khem Chand Gupta, Radhelal Gupta and Kalicharan Gupta whose application, preferred under Order 16 rule 1 (6) of CPC has been rejected vide order dated 12.12.2009 by the 8th Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.48N2009.

2. The plaintiffs have preferred a suit seeking eviction of the tenant in terms of the provisions of section 12(1)(a) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act by demonstrating the personal need of plaintiff-respondent No.3 and his son for running a business. The plaint allegations were denied by the defendant-tenant in his written statement by advancing the defence that the disputed shop is not actually required for commencing the business as the persons for whom the need has been raised are already running a business of selling readymade garments.

3. The record reveals that on previous two occasions, the tenant Jogendra Singh Pal/defendant-petitioner has approached this Court in Writ Petition No.5659/2006 and the landlord in Writ Petition No.3608/2008 where this Court had granted permission for allowing the amendment application preferred by the defendant-tenant in terms of Order 6 rule 17 CPC and subsequently in the plaintiffs' writ petition, this Court has permitted the plaintiffs to produce the evidence in rebuttal.

4. Shri V.K. Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the tenant petitioner has submitted that based upon the pleadings of the written statement regarding running a business by the persons for whom the need has been raised, the plaintiff-Radhelal Gupta was examined and cross-examined and a question was put to him that the plaintiffs belong to Mahor Gaur Vashya Samaj and a magazine of their Samaj was published wherein the details of her daughter Ms. Pinki Gupta was published wherein the occupation of the father was described as running a shop of selling readymade garments and the witness has admitted the fact that the magazine of this nature was published by the Samaj but the witness Radhelal Gupta has clearly denied the fact about information being given by him for the publication in the magazine about his occupation. Shri Bharadwaj submitted that since the witness has admitted the publication of the magazine but has denied the contents regarding his business, therefore, it was necessary for the tenant to have summoned the editor/ publisher/maker of the magazine, to prove the contents about occupation of the plaintiff/witness.

5. Shri Y.K. Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the tenant petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1971 SC 1865=(1972)4 SCC 562 Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others v. Yelamarti Satyam alias Satteyya and others, where the Supreme Court has observed that mere marking of the exhibit on a document does not dispense with the requirement of proving the document and on the basis of this judgment Shri Bharadwaj submitted that unless the editor/publisher/ maker of the magazine are examined/cross-examined, the contents of the document which has been exhibited as Annexure D-14 during the cross-examination of plaintiff Radhelal Gupta could not be treated to be proved in terms of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.

6. Shri Bharadwaj has further argued that in a celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1988 SC 1274=(1988)3 SCC 319 Laxmi Raj Shetty and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court while examining the scope and sweep of section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act has observed in relation to the newspaper report that the contents of news items are merely hearsay and unless the editor/publisher/maker of the newspaper is examined, the contents thereof cannot be treated to be duly proved. Shri Bharadwaj while advancing the analogy of section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act has argued