IMPORTANT POINT
Litigation as a strategy cannot be countenanced by court.

Alok Sharma, J.—This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.l1.2009 passed by Civil Judge, Neem ka Thana, Sikar (hereinafter ‘the trial court’) dismissing two different applications filed by the petitioner defendant/tenant (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), one under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, and the other under Section 151 CPC for taking additional documents on record in a suit for eviction filed by the respondent/plaintiff/landlord (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) Mali Ram Modi (now deceased and represented by his legal representatives).

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction in respect of a shop stated to be let out by him to defendant, which shop was/is situate near the bus-stand, at Neem ka Thana, Sikar. The eviction was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent by the defendant for the period July, 1994 to May, 1995 covered under Section 13(1)(d) of the Rajasthan Premises (control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter ‘1950 Act’) and on the ground of material alteration in tenanted premises without the consent of the landlord under Section 13(1)(c) of the 1950 Act.

3. Routine as it is, the suit was defended on all counts by the defendant and all grounds agitated negated. It was denied that there was any default in payment of rent or any material alteration made in the shop allegedly belonging to the plaintiff. It was further submitted that in fact the plaintiff was not the owner of the shop alleged to be tenanted, which shop in fact was that of the Nagar Palika Neem ka Thana, Sikar. Aside of the main controversy in the suit for eviction, the defendant stated in his written statement that the defendant was seeking to have the shop regularised in his own name by the Nagar Palika and was willing to deposit the required fee with the Nagar Palika, Neem ka Thana, Sikar, and had even sought the District Collector’s intervention for the purpose. It was stated that the defendant was doing business of selling footwear from the shop in issue in the name and style of “Agrawal Boot House” in his own right for over 12 years and that the suit for eviction was completely misdirected on all counts. On the pleadings of both the parties, seven issues were framed. Issue No.7 as originally framed was amended, and the amended issue before the trial court loosely translated was “as to whether the defendant was in occupation of shop in dispute for 12 years preceding the filing of the suit as owner and not as tenant?” The burden of the said issue in the context of pleadings of defendant was put on the defendant by the trial court.

4. In the course of trial, aside of multiple applications and various orders passed by the trial court from time to time, some of which were also challenged in appeal and orders granted by the appellate court, as on the issue of provisional rent, the defendant moved an application before the trial court under Section 65 of the Evidence Act on or about 13.8.2009 seeking permission of the trial court for leading secondary evidence in respect of two letters dated 15.8.1982 and 6.6.1994, allegedly written by Mali Ram to the Nagar Palika Neem ka Thana, Sikar. It was stated by the defendant in the aforesaid application that he had applied to Nagar Palika for certified copy of two letters dated 15.8.1982 and 6.6.1994, but was unable to get certified copies thereof, yet had managed to unauthorisedly get copies thereof. It was submitted that in this view of the matter the defendant be allowed to lead secondary evidence qua the two aforesaid letters based on typed, uncertified, unauthorised copies obtained allegedly from the Nagar Palika Neem ka Thana, Sikar.

5. The plaintiff denied the said documents dated 15.8.1982 and 6.6.1994 in respect of which secondary evidence was sought to be led by defendant. It was submitted that the said letters had never been written by the plaintiff and that in any event photo copies thereof obtained unauthorisedly as admitted did not bear any endorsement