P S Kulwant Singh v. Rajnisangwal & Ors.

1. The petitioner/tenant is aggrieved by the common order dated 5"" November, 2015 passed in two connected cases i.e. Eviction Petition No.41/2009 and Eviction Petition No.8/2011 whereby the prayer of the petitioner to place on record the "kirayanama" of 1976 as well the rent receipt for the period from 4"" May, 1976 to 1981 has been declined by learned Trial Court. CM(M)Nos.1144&1146of2015 Page 1 of[6] 2015:DHC:10840 H

2. The prayer for placing these documents on record has been declined by the learned Trial Court for the reason that these documents were in possession ofthe petitioner for last several years and as law cannot favour a negligent litigant the petitioner cannot be allowed to place on record these documents. It was further observed that this being not a case of bonafide requirement these documents would not be of much relevance for the disposal ofthe eviction petition which has been filed on the ground that the premises has become unfit/unsafe for human habitation as well the substantial damage being caused to the premises by the tenant and also the tenant acquiring the vacant possession ofanother resident. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Joginder Sinsh v^'. Amar Nath Gupta 2012 C, Law Suit(Del)3478,Exide Industries LTd. V[5]. Exide Corporation USA and Ors. 2010 Law Suit(Del)4678,La Chemise Lacoste & Anr. vs. Crocodile Indl. Pte. Ltd. 2007 Law Suit(Del) 1759 and Om Prakash vi'. Chintu Devi 2006 Law Suit(Jhar)846 in support ofhis contentions.

3. Heard.

4. Order VIII Rule lA sub-rule (3) provides that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but is not so produced shall not, without the leave ofthe Court, be received in evidence on his behalfatthe hearing ofthe suit.

5. In the impugned order dated 05.11.2015 in para 3, the learned Trial Court has noted the details of the.documents, for which permission was sought by the petitioner herein,as under "a. The rentletter/''kirayanama "1976as RW-1/1 b. Rentreceipt[4].5.1976to 1981 RW-1/2A to RW-1/2G. CM(M)Nos.1144&1146of2015 Page 2of[6] ■N c. Complaint dated 05.08.06 lodged before the police the petitioner as RW-1/3. d. Compromise petition jointly fded before the police August 06 as RW-1/4. e. Ration Card issued by the food and civil supply department ofDelhi Government asRW-1/5. f. Election Identity Card issued by the Department of Government ofIndia asRW-1/6. g. Electoralroll issuedby the ElectionDept. Govt. ofIndia as RW-1/7. h. Aadhar Card issued by the Election Dept. Govt. ofIndia asRW-1/8. i. The certify copy of registered GPA in favour of Smt. Ravinder Kaur as RW-2/I. j. The original carbon copy of police complaint dated 26.04.2015 lodgedby Smt.RavinderKaur. "

6. Inpara 14 of the impugned order, it has been noted as under 'Vide order dated 02.11.2015, it has already been agreedupon that the controversy in this application only remains regarding the documents mentioned in sub para a, b, f g and h of sub para 2 of the application fded in Petition number E-4I/09. Therefore, the deliberation of the Court shall be confined to these documents only. '

1. Vide impugned order, the prayer to place on record the documents mentioned at serial No.(a) and (b) above i.e "kirayanama" and rent receipts, has been rejected.

8. In para no.2 of the written statement placed on record, the petitioner against whom Eviction Case No.E-8/2011 has been filed under Section CM(M) Nos.1144 & J146 of2015 Page 3 of[6] c. 14(l)(a),(f)&(j)ofDelhi Rent Control Aet,necessary averments regarding the terms ofthe tenancy and the rate ofrent being reduced into writing in the 'kirayanama' have been made. It is also pleaded that the tenant had been paying rent and enjoying the tenancy rights on the same terms irrespective ofthe factthatthe property changed hands.

9. During hearing of these petitions, it was noticed that the 'kirayanamaphotocopy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-1 (Page 31 of the paper book) has been exhibited as DW-1/1 on 29"' March, 2012. On being questioned about this document being already exhibited, the parties informed that it has been exhibited in a suit for permanent injunction being Civil Suit No.221/2006(later on re-numbered as Suit No.155/2014) pending before the learned ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

10. The Civil Suit No.221/2006 for permanent injunction has been filed by the respondent herein, wherein the present petitioner has been impleaded as defendantNo.l who has filed his written statement on 11"'January,2007. In the said Civil Suitthe 'kirayanama'has been exhibited.

11. The 'kirayanama' and rent receipts have already been filed and exhibited in the said Civil Suit. Although the rent receipts have been filed by the petitioner herein only at the stage ofcross examination ofthe witness ^ namely P.V. Krishna Murthy,s/o late Sh.Krishna Murthy-earlier landlord and not filed at the initial stage but the fact remains that execution ofrent receipts have been accepted by the witness of the petitioner in the suit as RPW-l/Dl to RPW-1/D[7].

12. The observation made by the learned Trial Court that 'kirayanama' was in power and possession ofthe petitioner is not correctratherthe fact CM(M)Nos.1144&1146of2015 Page 4of[6] remains that the 'kirayanama'liQnt reeeipts had already been filed in Civil Suit No.221/2006 which was pending between these parties in respectofthe suit property.

13. Thus, it cannot be said that the placing on record copy of the 'kimyanama' which has been. exhibited as DW-1/1 in Civil Suit No.221/2006 is going to cause any kind of prejudice to the respondent herein just for the reason that it was not filed along with the written statement in Eviction Petition Nos.41/2009 and 8/2011. The fact remains that necessary pleadings in respect ofthe 'kirayanama' have already been made in the written statement filed in Civil Suit No.221/2006. 'kirayanama' has already been exhibited in the suit for permanent injunction pending ^ between the same parties. By placing the copy/certified copy ofthe same on record and proving the same in accordance with provisions of Indian Evidence Act would not have caused any prejudice to the respondent herein.

14. The rent reeeipts and 'kirayanama' have already been exhibited in. another litigation i.e. in Civil Suit No.155/2006 pending between the same parties and the necessary averments in the written statement regarding execution of rent noid'kirayanama' and tenancy continuing on the same terms being already made in the written statement filed in the eviction petition,these petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall place the certified \ copy of the 'kirayanama'Iv&ai receipts on record and prove the same in accordance with the provisions ofIndian Evidence Act.

15. An apprehension has been expressed by the learned counsel for the respondent herein that since the respondent/landlord in Eviction Petition Nos.41/2009 and 8/2011 has already concluded evidence, his right may be prejudiced if'kirayanama'/rent receipts are filed atthis stage.In order to CM(M)Nos.1144& 1146of2015 Page 5of[6] c protect the interest of the respondent herein/landlord, she is given an opportunity to file appropriate application before the learned Trial Court to seek permission to lead further evidence, ifnecessary, only to the extent to rebutthe 'kirayanama Vrent receipts.