Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 332 (PNJ)

National Productivity Council v. Raj Kumar Soni

2002-03-21

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR

body2002
Judgment J.S.Khehar, J. 1. The petitioner-tenant moved an application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for discovery and production of documents. The said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh vide order dated 20.11.2001. The aforesaid order has been impugned by the petitioner before this Court. 2. This Court was informed by the learned counsel representing the petitioner on 28.1.2002 that the petitioner-tenant i.e. the National Productivity Council, New Delhi, is a society under the direct control of the Ministry of Industrial Development, Government of India, for imparting technical know-how to industrial units for the promotion of their productivity at reduced rates. This Court was also informed that the finances for running the affairs of the National Productivity Council are met by the Government of India. It was, therefore, pointed out that the petitioner-tenant is not like any ordinary private litigant. 3. In conjunction with the status of the petitioner-tenant, this Court was informed that in the first instance, the petitioner-tenant had engaged the services of a senior counsel who was duly instructed in the matter. However, officers of the petitioner-tenant who attended the hearing in the case before the Rent Controller were of the opinion that proceedings before the Rent Controller were not properly/adequately defended by the senior counsel originally engaged. In these circumstances, the petitioner-tenant decided to change the counsel and as such engaged the services of a new counsel. So as to overcome the deliberations which had been conducted before the Rent Controller through the earlier counsel, the new counsel moved an application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for discovery and production of documents. 4. It was further asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant on 28.1.2002 that the petitioner would be willing to bear any costs in order to compensate the respondents, in case the application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for discovery and production of documents was allowed, as the production of documents sought through the aforesaid application would help the court in arriving at a just and effective decision on the controversy. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 28.1.2002, he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 28.1.2002, he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the Registry of this Court. The aforesaid deposit is alleged to have been made. The respondent-landlord has entered appearance in response to the notice issued by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that through the application made on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, the respondent-landlord is being called upon to produce his passport along with details of the visas granted to him from time to time from 1996 till date; he is also being called upon to produce documents relating to his income-tax returns; additionally, the respondent-landlord is being called upon to produce before the Rent Controller details of the disposal of his assets. 7. Relying on the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has vehemently contended that the documents sought to be produced through discovery need not be admissible in evidence in the proceedings; it is sufficient if the documents would throw light on the subject matter in controversy. It is, therefore, contended that even though a document may be inadmissible in evidence for the main case, yet it may disclose information which directly or indirectly enables the party seeking discovery either to advance his case or damage the adversarys case; in both situations the court must exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner by allowing his prayer for production and discovery of documents demanded by him. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Before the Rent Controller, the respondent-landlord is seeking ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the premises in its occupation on the ground of personal use and occupation. The respondent-landlord in the said ejectment petition has expressed himself to be of old age and, therefore, not in a position to bear the cold climate of the United Kingdom (where he presently resides). It is, therefore, his desire to reside at Chandigarh in the property which is presently in possession of the petitioner-tenant. The respondent-landlord in the said ejectment petition has expressed himself to be of old age and, therefore, not in a position to bear the cold climate of the United Kingdom (where he presently resides). It is, therefore, his desire to reside at Chandigarh in the property which is presently in possession of the petitioner-tenant. Disposal of assets of the respondent-landlord, his income-tax returns or even the passport and visas granted to him from time to time, in my view, have no relevance to the issue of bonafide personal necessity, which is the subject matter of the controversy before the Rent Controller. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the Rent Controller to the effect that the documents production of which has been sought by the petitioner-tenant are irrelevant to the plea of bonafide personal necessity. 10. From the sequence of facts narrated above, it is evident that this Court at the time of issuance of notice of motion was given the impression that the earlier counsel engaged by the petitioner-tenant did not adequately defend the proceedings before the Rent Controller, whereupon, a new counsel was engaged who has moved the instant application so as to make up the deficiencies in the defence of the case (on behalf of the petitioner-tenant). It is, however, pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord that the evidence on behalf of the petitioner-tenant was closed on 2.12.2000 and that after the petitioner-tenant engaged the new counsel, two applications were moved for additional evidence by the new counsel on the same subject matter i.e. in order to produce evidence in respect of facts for which the instant application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for discovery and production of documents, has been moved. In this behalf, averments made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the grounds of revision need to be noticed and are, accordingly, reproduced hereunder for facility of reference :- "5. That in order to effectively defend the petition as filed against the petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Act, the petitioner engaged the services of a senior counsel who was duly instructed in the matter. However, officers of the petitioner while attending the hearings in court were of the opinion that the said proceedings were not being defended. However, officers of the petitioner while attending the hearings in court were of the opinion that the said proceedings were not being defended. In the circumstances, the petitioner decided to change counsel and engage services of another lawyer. 6. That upon change of counsel and inspection of the record, the counsel recommended filing of an application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC for discovery on production of documents seeking interalia the production of : (i) Copies of the Passport of the respondents with Visa granted to them to visit India from 1996 till date. (ii) Records pertaining to the income tax returns and disposal of assets by the respondents from 1996 onwards. The petitioner submitted that the aforementioned documents were very relevant and went to the root of the case and would help in the just adjudication of the matter in dispute." The Rent Controller while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner- tenant on 20.11.2001 had also arrived at the conclusion that the instant application had been filed only to delay the proceedings. I affirm the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the Rent Controller. Since both the applications for additional evidence were filed by the new counsel engaged by the petitioner-tenant, the facts narrated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the grounds of revision, reproduced above, are really misleading. It cannot be expected of a society such as the petitioner society to act in such a manner. 11 For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 2,500/-.