2023:PHHC:106770

CR-3811-2023 (O&M)

--1--

335 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-3811-2023(O&M)

Decided on:-17.08.2023

Pawan Kumar

....Petitioner..

vs.

Vinod Dutt Sharma

....Respondent.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:

Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

1.

By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to

an order dated 20.05.2023, passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby an

application filed at the instance of petitioner-tenant seeking permission to

send his voice samples to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory,

Chandigarh for comparing the same with audio/video clip recorded in the

pendrive (Ex.R-1/A), was dismissed.

2.

In the present case, an eviction petition under Section 13 of the

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as

“1949 Act”) came to be filed by respondent-landlord on the ground of non-

payment of arrears of rent. In the written statement, petitioner-tenant took

the stand that the rent was duly paid; on some occasions to the respondent-

landlord and on few others to his son. In this regard, petitioner-tenant also

relied upon one video-audio recording pertaining to the son of respondent.

3.

Post framing of the issues, respondent-landlord appeared as

SONIKA

2023.08.22 12:41

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

2023:PHHC:106770

CR-3811-2023 (O&M)

--2--

PW-1 and the said video recording in a pendrive was even put to him after

the same having been played in Court with due permission. The respondent-

landlord denied the petitioner to be the person handing over certain amount

to his son; besides even disputing the voice to be of the petitioner-tenant.

4.

At the time of recording of evidence of petitioner-tenant, an

application was filed at his instance, seeking permission to send his voice

sample to the FSL for its comparison with the voice in the aforementioned

video recording in the pendrive. The said application was opposed at the

instance of respondent-landlord. The learned Rent Controller vide order

dated 20.05.2023, rejected the prayer made by the petitioner-tenant in the

said application.

5.

Impugning the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the contents of the recording (audio as well as video)

go to the roots of the matter and would help the Rent Controller to

adjudicate upon the controversy in a complete and effective manner. He also

submits that the Rent Controller went wrong while declining the prayer

made in the application by holding that the Court cannot create evidence for

petitioner-tenant. As per learned counsel, the evidence was already existing

in the shape of pendrive and forming part of record as Ex. R-1/A, the

question was only of its proof and thus, the observation made by the Courts

below was wrong.

6.

On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent

supports the order passed by the Rent Controller, while submitting that the

video recording in the pendrive cannot be treated to be a piece of primary

evidence and thus, the same cannot be permitted to be produced or proved

SONIKA

2023.08.22 12:41

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

2023:PHHC:106770

CR-3811-2023 (O&M)

--3--

on record. He also points out that even details of device or date of the

recording have not been mentioned in the application and thus, the prayer

made was vague.

7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through

the paper book, I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of

petitioner.

8.

The recording (audio-video) contained in the pendrive

(Ex.R-1/A) is documentary evidence under Section 3-A of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘1872 Act’) being an electronic record and

can even be treated as an admission under Section 7 thereof, however,

subject to proof of its genuineness. Being an