Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 160 (HP)

P. R. RANA v. AJAY KAUSHISH

2006-05-30

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2006
JUDGEMENT Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): The respondents, (hereinafter referred to as the landlords), filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises on the ground that he had failed to occupy the same since April, 2000 without any reasonable cause. The petition was field on 13.3.2002. The tenant was served and put in appearance on 23.7.2002. After the pleadings were completed, issues were framed on 5.12.2002. The petition was then fixed for the evidence of the landlords. On 29.10.2003 two witnesses were present, but they were discharged on the request of the counsel for the landlords that he wanted to examine the witnesses alongwith the other witnesses. Thereafter the case effectively came up for the landlord evidence on 17.5.2004. On he said date four witnesses were present. The witnesses, who were present, were discharged by the learned Rent Controller on the request of counsel for the tenant who had moved an application under Order 13 Rule 10 for summoning of some record. ln! fact this application was not opposed by the counsel for the landlords and was allowed and the fresh evidence was summoned for 30.6.2004. 2. On 30.6.2004 again four witnesses were present, but they were not examined on the ground that the record from the court of Rent Controller (11) with regard to some previous litigation between the parties (including their predecessor-in-interests) had not been received. The case was then adjourned for the statement of the official from the general record room on 28.7.2004.On the said date through the official was present, but he was discharged since an application had been moved on behalf of the tenant for adjournment which was not opposed and the case was adjourned to 26.8.2004. On the said date the official from the record room was not present since no steps had been taken by the tenant for summoning him. The matter was adjourned to 14.9.2004 on which date the witness from the record room appeared and filed a certificate to the effect that record of the case which had been summoned had been destroyed. His statement to this effect was also recorded. The counsel for the tenant then sought time to seek permission to lead secondary evidence. The matter was adjourned to 14.9.2004 on which date the witness from the record room appeared and filed a certificate to the effect that record of the case which had been summoned had been destroyed. His statement to this effect was also recorded. The counsel for the tenant then sought time to seek permission to lead secondary evidence. On the next date i.e. 28.9.2004 two applications were filed, one under Section 65 CPC for leading secondary evidence and second application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC praying for summoning of further record. Replies to the said applications were filed by the landlord after seeking one adjournment and the replies were filed on 2.12.2004. Thereafter the matter was adjourned twice on the request of learned counsel for the tenant and finally, arguments on these applications were heard on 7th January, 2005. 3. Surprisingly, though the arguments on these two minor applications were heard on 7th January, 2005, the matter was adjourned 16 times before the order was finally passed on these applications on 7th January, 2006. The Rent Controller took exactly one year to decide these applications. 4. This case clearly brings out the casual manner with which the Rent Controller handled the case. The learned Rent Controller who was hearing the case, thrice adjourned the matter even when the witnesses were present without | any valid reason, only on the request of the parties. The learned Rent Controller | did not at all consider the convenience of the witnesses. Witnesses appear in court(s) because they are summoned by the court(s). The official witnesses were only to prove some record. There is no reason why their evidence should not have been recorded. Merely on the request of the counsel dealing with the case i the witnesses were discharged without realizing that this may cause great hardship to the witnesses. Witnesses need to be treated with respect by the courts. Their1 difficulties should also be taken into consideration. It should be the endeavor of all courts to ensure that the witnesses are not put to any inconvenience and that they are not summoned to court time, and again for no fault of theirs. 5. Witnesses are to assist the court. They have no personal axe to grind. They normally do not have any personal interest in the matter. This is more especially true with regard to the official witnesses. 5. Witnesses are to assist the court. They have no personal axe to grind. They normally do not have any personal interest in the matter. This is more especially true with regard to the official witnesses. The witnesses and the public at large will loose faith in the entire judicial system if they are time and again called to court, made to wait for the whole day and at the end of the day told that they can go home and will be called again. If a witness does not appear consequent to the summons issued by a court, the court can take strict penal action in terms of Order 16 CPC. There should be a corresponding responsibility on the courts to ensure that all efforts are made to examine the witnesses and that they should not be discharged without valid and cogent reasons. 6. In the present case neither the counsel for either party nor the court realized or appreciated the inconvenience being caused to the witnesses. It is apparent from the record that the witnesses who were present were by and large official witnesses. The court on the first day adjourned the case only the ground that counsel for the landlords had requested that the wanted to examine the witnesses alongwith the other witnesses. On the next two occasions the witnesses were discharged on the request of the counsel for the tenant one ground that some application has been filed for summoning of the record and on the next date , that the relevant record had not been received. No body looked into the question/ whether the official witnesses were to be even confronted with this record or not. 7. I have gone through the entire record sought to be produced by the tenant in pursuance of the two applications filed under Order 13 CPC. All this record relates to orders and judgments passed in earlier proceedings between tenant and the predecessor-in-interest of the present landlords. Some statements are also sought to be proved. This record has no relevance to the statement of the official witnesses and the learned Rent Controller did not even deem it fit to find out whether the witnesses who were present were to be confronted with the said record or not. The witnesses could have been examined and the hearing on the applications could go on side by side. 8. The witnesses could have been examined and the hearing on the applications could go on side by side. 8. This court has noticed with dismay the attitude of the courts in adjourning with alacrity cases even when witnesses are present. This should not be done. As observed above, the court should ensure that minimum amount of inconvenience is caused to the witnesses. The trial courts should ensure that as far as possible the statement of all the witnesses present should be recorded. Preference should also be given to official witnesses and witnesses who have traveled from out station to appear in court. This court has repeatedly given directions that doctors and other government officials should be examined in the earlier half of the day. It is also depressing to note that the learned Rent Controller took more than one year to decide two small applications for permission to lead secondary evidence and for permission to produce additional documents. These applications should normally be decided on the date when the reply is filed. Normally such applications do not call for any rejoinder and the matters should be decided at the earliest. In the present case though more than four years have elapsed since the filing of the eviction petition no effective work has been done and even the statement of the petitioner has not been recorded. 9. On 7.1.2006 the learned Rent Controller allowed the application filed under Section 65 CPC for leading secondary evidence, but rejected the application filed under Section 13 Rule 10 CPC for permission to summary the record to prove certain documents. While dismissing the second application the learned Rent Controller rightly held that most of the documents being certified copies of order/judgments could straightaway be tendered in evidence or could be put to the witnesses of the petitioner in cross-examination without the original being produced. There is only one statement of Prem Chand, father of the landlords, certified copy of which has been produced which may require formal proof. Only the landlords could have been confronted with this statement and not the other witnesses. The case was unnecessarily dragged on for more than a years only for this purpose. 10. There is only one statement of Prem Chand, father of the landlords, certified copy of which has been produced which may require formal proof. Only the landlords could have been confronted with this statement and not the other witnesses. The case was unnecessarily dragged on for more than a years only for this purpose. 10. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case I feel that the revision petition may be allowed to the limited extent that the respondent-tenant shall be permitted to summon the record of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 57/6 of 1978, titled Tilak Ram and others Vs. Prem Chand Kaushish, decided on 1.9.1978 by the Sub Judge (1), Shimla, only to confront the landlord(s) or their witnesses with the statement of Prem Chand, referred to above. The case is already fixed for the evidence of the petitioners on 26th June, 2006. It shall be the responsibility of the tenant to ensure that the process fee, diet money etc. is filed and the witnesses are served for the next date. It is made clear that in case the witness who has to produce the record states that record is destroyed, no further opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to produce any other evidence. He can confront the witnesses with the certified copy of the statement which is already on record. The case has been adjourned a number of times on the request of the tenant. Therefore, this permission to summon the record is granted subject to payment of Rs.2, 000/- as costs by the tenant which shall be paid to the respondent-landlords in court on 26.6.2006. 11. Keeping in view the fact that the matter has been hanging fire for so long, it is ordered that the learned Rent Controller shall hear and decide the original rent petition as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than 31 December, 2006.Record of the learned flower court be sent back forthwith so as to reach well before the next date. 12. An authenticated copy of this judgment shall also be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties. A copy of this judgment be circulated to all courts in Himachal Pradesh.