JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition from the order dated 14.10.1997 of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Bikaner passed in civil original suit no. 194/85 whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner-defendant u /O. 13 R. 2 CPC, 2. The defendant-petitioner is a tenant of the plaintiff-non-petitioner in the suit shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. The present suit was filed by the non-petitioner,plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the suit shop on the ground of personal, reasonable and bairn fide necessity for the use and occupation of her husband and sons. The petitioner-defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the husband and sons of the plaintiff are very well set in business at Calcutta and they have not shown any inclination so far to shift their business to Bikaner or to open new business for which the suit shop could possibly be required. The petitioner also stated that Bhanwarlal, agent of the plaintiff, has been regularly let out the rooms of the first floor to various persons and-a register is also maintained for the above purpose. The petitioner, there,fore, moved an application u/O. 13 R. 2 CPC before the Court on the ground that Bhanwarlal was the authorised agent and munim of the plaintiff-non-petitioner and used to maintain a register for the persons staying in the building of the plaintiff. The said Bhanwarlal used to let out rooms in Ratan Building to visitors of the hospital after charging money. Shri Bhanwarlal used to issue receipts on demand to the persons staying in the aforesaid lodge and hotel and also kept a register. The defendant-petitioner obtained photostat copies of the said register maintained in the Ratan Building Lodge and Hotel and the receipts issued in respect of rent to the persons staying in the said building. The defendant-petitioner wanted to produce the above documents in order to negative the plea of the plaintiff regarding her necessity of the suit shop as bona fide and reasonable necessity. The trial Court, however, did not allow the application and held that the above documents are not relevant and necessary for the just decision of the case. 3. The defendant-petitioner wanted to produce the above documents in order to negative the plea of the plaintiff regarding her necessity of the suit shop as bona fide and reasonable necessity. The trial Court, however, did not allow the application and held that the above documents are not relevant and necessary for the just decision of the case. 3. I have heard Shri B.L. Khatri appearing on behalf of the petitioner who has stated that the above documents sought to be produced by the defendant-petitioner in the above case were relevant in order to rebut or controvert the plea of the plaintiff that she required the above suit shop reasonably and bona fide for the business of her husband and sons. The plaintiff has got a good accommodation and the same is being let out instead of utilising the same for the business of her husband and sons. The trial Court committed a grave error in holding that the above documents were not relevant because the question of relevancy can only be decided u /O. 13 R. 3 CPC. 4. He has placed reliance on Narendra Singh Yadav v. Murari Meghani,1997(2) WLC (Raj) 458 . Shri Khatri also stated that the petitioner could move application only when he was in a position to obtain the copies of the above documents. It is also a settled law that only on ground of delay, documents should not be excluded from production when the same are relevant and necessary for a just decision of the case. 5. I have considered the submissions made by Shri Khatri. It may be stated that the suit was filed way back in the year 1985. In the written statement, filed by the defendant-petitioner, he has stated that the plaintiff was letting out other shops and rooms to other persons. When the petitioner was aware of these facts even when the written statement was filed, the petitioner must explain inordinate delay with which this application u /O. 13 R. 2 CPC was filed. It may also be stated that the trial Court has stated that the contention of the defendant-petitioner that Bhanwarlal is the agent of the plaintiff-non-petitioner was rejected previously also. In the written statement, the defendant has not stated that Bhanwarlal who is alleged to be author of these documents was the agent of the plaintiff-non-petitioner. It may also be stated that the trial Court has stated that the contention of the defendant-petitioner that Bhanwarlal is the agent of the plaintiff-non-petitioner was rejected previously also. In the written statement, the defendant has not stated that Bhanwarlal who is alleged to be author of these documents was the agent of the plaintiff-non-petitioner. The petitioner could have summoned these documents from the plaintiff after serving a statutory notice. It was also not done. 6. For the above reasons, I hold that the relevancy of th4 documents as well as the proper custody of these documents has not been established. There is also inordinate delay in filing the above application. The trial Court has, therefore, not committed any jurisdictional error in dismissing the application of the petitioner.There is no force in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******