Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1486 (PNJ)

Amarjit Singh v. Baldev Singh

2009-08-24

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2009
Judgment Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. 1. This revision petition has been directed by Amarjit Singh son of Balwant Singh-tenant (herein after to be referred as "the tenant) against the impugned order dated 3.3.2001, vide which the Rent Controller has dismissed his application for additional evidence. 2. The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal, of present petition and emanating from the record is that respondent-landlord Baldev Singh son of late Inder Singh (hereinafter to be referred as "the landlord") filed an ejectment petition against Mohan Singh and Amarjit Singh tenants, invoking the provisions of section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (herein after to be referred as "the Act") on the ground of subletting. 3. Having completed all the codal formalities, the ejectment petition was fixed for arguments. Tenant Amarjit Singh, instead of arguing the main petition, filed an application for additional evidence, inter-alia, pleading that the landlord has filed the ejectment petition against him and Mohan Singh on the ground of subletting and he has not admitted him (Amarjit Singh) as tenant. Earlier, he (Amarjit Singh) alongwith other tenants filed a suit against the landlord for permanent injunction claiming themselves to be the tenants in the disputed premises. The landlord filed the written statement and admitted that Amarjit Singh was a tenant in the demised premises under the landlord. Thus, tenant Amarjit Singh moved an application for additional evidence to enable him to produce copies of plaint and written statement of earlier suit titled as "Amarjit Singh and others v. Baldev Singh and another" which were stated to have not been filed earlier inadvertently. On the basis of the aforesaid grounds, the tenant sought to produce copies of plaint and written statement in the earlier suit between the parties by way of additional evidence in the instant ejectment petition. 4. The landlord contested the prayer of the tenant and filed the reply in which it was stated that the documents sought to be produced by the tenant were already in his knowledge and were available with him. The same could not be produced at this stage, because it will prejudice the case of the landlord and will amount to re-opening of the case. That being so, the landlord prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. The Rent Controller dismissed the application for additional evidence vide impugned order dated 3.3.2001. The same could not be produced at this stage, because it will prejudice the case of the landlord and will amount to re-opening of the case. That being so, the landlord prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. The Rent Controller dismissed the application for additional evidence vide impugned order dated 3.3.2001. 6. Amarjit Singh tenant did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and filed the present revision petition. That is how I am seized of the matter. 7. At the very outset, it will not be out of place to mention here that during the pendency of the present revision petition, one Asha Nand son of Bhaku Ram purchased the property in dispute and moved CM No.5533-CIl of 2003, through Shri Ashok Gupta, Advocate, which was allowed by this Court and subsequent vendee Asha Nand was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.3. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record of the case with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me. as the impugned order cannot legally be sustained, therefore, the revision petition deserves to be accepted, for the reasons mentioned here-in below. 9. As indicated earlier, the landlord has filed the ejectment petition against tenants Mohan Singh and Amarjit Singh on the ground of subletting. Meaning thereby, the landlord has denied the relationship of Amarjit Singh as his tenant. Learned counsel for Amarjit Singh tenant has produced the attested copies of the plaint and written statement sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, which would go to show that Amarjit Singh son of Balwant Singh (present petitioner) and three others filed Civil Suit No.740 of 1995 on 27.9.1995 restraining defendants (Baldev Singh landlord and Municipal Committee) from interfering in any manner in their peaceful possession as tenants of the disputed property. Landlord Baldev Singh has filed the written statement dated 5.12.1995 in which it has been specifically admitted that the plaintiffs (in that suit) are tenants under him. Meaning thereby, the landlord has categorically admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Amarjit Singh petitioner, but he has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between them in the present eviction petition. 10. Meaning thereby, the landlord has categorically admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Amarjit Singh petitioner, but he has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between them in the present eviction petition. 10. Thus, it would be seen that the important issue, as to whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, would be a moot point to be decided at the time of trial of the ejectment petition. 11. Above being the position, to my mind, the copies of the plaint and written statement containing the admission of the landlord sought to be produced would be most relevant piece of evidence in order to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant and real controversy between the parties. 12. However, the celebrated argument of learned counsel for the tenant and also the main ground, which appears to have weighed with the Rent Controller, while declining the prayer of the tenant for additional evidence that as the tenant did not produce these documents at the earlier stage, which were within his knowledge, therefore, the tenant cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence, is not only devoid of merits but misplaced as well because once it is found that the documents sought to be produced in additional evidence are vital piece of evidence, which would go to the root of the case to decide the real controversy between the parties, in that eventuality, the application for additional evidence deserves to be and the Rent Controller ought to have allowed the production of the documents by way of additional evidence as prayed for by the tenant Otherwise, it will prejudice his case. 13. No doubt, it cannot possibly be denied that the tenant was some what negligent and has not produced the copies of the plaint and written statement at the earlier stage, but that alone is not sufficient ground to negate the prayer of the tenant in this relevant context, particularly when the additional evidence sought to be produced on record are the copies of the plaint and written statement in earlier suit between the parties are vital piece of evidence, which would go to the root of the case and are essential to decide the real controversy between the parties, particularly when the opposite side can adequately be compensated with costs in this respect. 14. Moreover, rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. 14. Moreover, rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. The court must always be anxious to do justice and to prevent victories by way of technical knock-outs. Procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction, but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. It is no doubt true, that rules of procedure are meant to further the course of justice and the effort of every court is to afford an effective opportunity to the contesting parties to substantiate their respective pleas. 15. Hence, in my view, as the Rent Controller has committed a patent illegality and irregularity and in the obtaining circumstances of the case, contrary arguments of learned counsel stricto-sensu deserve to be and are hereby repelled in this regard. Therefore, the impugned, order cannot legally be sustained and, thus, accordingly, is hereby set aside. 16. No other point worth consideration has been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 17. Thus, seen from any angle, in the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either party during the trial of the main ejectment petition, while accepting the application of the petitioner tenant, he is permitted to produce and prove the pleadings of the earlier suit between the parties sought to be produced by way of additional evidence. However, this would be subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs by the tenant and all just exceptions. 18. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 16.11.2009. Petition allowed.