JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Omkar Singh who is landlord/petiitoner before the Rent Controller has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 01.06.2011 (Annexure P- 1) passed by learned Rent Controller, Moga, thereby dismissing the petitioner’s application for secondary evidence of rent receipt (Annexure P-4). 2. Petitioner has filed ejectment petition (Annexure P-2) against the respondent Pannu under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging that the respondent is tenant in the disputed property under the petitioner. The tenant in his written statement (Annexure P-3) denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and pleaded that he was working as servant with the petitioner and had purchased the plot from the petitioner and constructed the house in the year 2005 and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 3. The petitioner in his application for secondary evidence alleged that he had issued receipt for rent of October to December 2006 to the respondent and the original rent receipt is in possession of the respondent whereas photostat copy thereof is in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner prayed that respondent be directed to produce the original receipt, failing which the petitioner be permitted to prove the rent receipt by way of secondary evidence. 4. Learned Rent Controller vide impugned order (Annexure P-1) dismissed the petitioner’s application for secondary evidence. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioner contended that original receipt is in possession of the respondent whereas photostat copy thereof, is in possession of the petitioner who should be allowed to prove the same by the secondary evidence. 7. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that no rent was paid by respondent to the petitioner and no such receipt was issued and therefore, application of petitioner for secondary evidence of the receipt has been rightly dismissed by learned Rent Controller. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Learned Rent Controller has observed that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been denied by the respondent and so the question of issuance of rent receipts in favour of respondent does not arise at all. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Learned Rent Controller has observed that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been denied by the respondent and so the question of issuance of rent receipts in favour of respondent does not arise at all. This approach of learned Rent Controller is totally perverse and illegal because the question whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not and the question whether any rent receipt was issued or not has to be adjudicated upon after the parties lead their evidence and at this stage, it cannot be said that any rent receipt was issued by the petitioner to the respondent or not. Learned Rent Controller has also observed that the document sought to be produced by secondary evidence can be self created by the petitioner whereas issuance of rent receipt has been denied by the respondent. This approach of learned Rent Controller is also patently untenable because photostate copy of the alleged rent receipt purports to bear thumb impression of the respondent, besides signature of the petitioner and, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the said document could be created by the petitioner himself. 9. Contention of counsel for the respondent that there is no original receipt cannot be accepted at this stage because original receipt if issued could be in possession of the respondent and not in possession of the petitioner. 10. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has right to prove the alleged rent receipt (Annexure P4) by secondary evidence subject to just exceptions. Impugned order of learned Rent Controller is perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. 11. Accordingly, the instant revision petiiton is allowed, impugned order (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Rent Controller is set aside. Application moved by the petiitoner for proving alleged rent receipt (Annexure P-4) by secondary evidence is allowed subject to just exceptions and subject to proof of existence, execution and loss of the original document. Nothing observed in this order shall have any bearing on merits of the ejectment petition. ---------0.B.S.0------------