JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - In this revision petition, the tenant had challenged order of 30.01.2014 (Annexure P-5) of the Rent Controller whereby the landlady had been allowed to lead secondary evidence of lease deed of 14.10.2006. It is claimed that secondary evidence was permitted to be led on oral request of the landlady and that too without any opportunity of contest having been provided to the tenant. It is further averred that not only the landlady was required to produce the original document but was also required to prove existence of the document before seeking permission to lead secondary evidence thereof. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlady, on the other hand, has claimed that since, circumstances sufficient enough to form foundation of leading secondary evidence had been brought on record, permission to lead secondary evidence was allowed. It is claimed that the revisionist-tenant is delaying and dilating the matter of his eviction on one score or the other. 3. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length while going through the grounds of revision, impugned order as also the attending facts and circumstances emerging from the paper-book. 4. An eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) was filed by the landlady against the tenant. Premises are commercial. The landlady came with a definite stand of inception of tenancy in favour of the revisionist-tenant with effect from 15.10.2006 in pursuance to lease-deed dated 14.10.2006, the lease period being 11 months. Relevant pleadings of the landlady, on this count, are contained in para 2 of the eviction petition (Annexure P-1) which for ready reference are reproduced as below:- “2. That the respondent is a tenant of the above said SCF/premises in dispute detail in para no.1 of the petition @ Rs.11,000/- p.m. (Rupees Eleven Thousand only) besides electricity as per lease agreement dated 14.10.2006 and the lease was for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 15.10.2006 as per lease agreement and now the respondent is a statutory tenant.” 5. In his written statement preferred by the tenant, tough contest was made by him. Though rate of rent was admitted to be Rs.11,000/- per month but it was claimed that there was no written lease-deed and that the tenancy was oral. In his written statement preferred by the tenant, tough contest was made by him. Though rate of rent was admitted to be Rs.11,000/- per month but it was claimed that there was no written lease-deed and that the tenancy was oral. Reply of the tenant for ready reference in its relevant portion is reproduced as next page:- “3. That the contents of para No.2 of the petition is correct to the extent that the rental amount is of Rs.11000/- per month. It is made clear that the rent amount was fixed as Rs.9000/- w.e.f. February, 2004 till February, 2006 and later on, no rent agreement was executed between the parties, and no limitation of time of tenancy was settled/fixed and the tenancy was further approved between the parties orally and the rent was enhanced to Rs.11,000/- per month as per the prevailing rate of rent in the market, as per the wish and choice of the petitioner. 6. During the course of proceedings before the Rent Controller when evidence of the landlady was continuing, an application dated 18.05.2012 (Annexure P-3) was preferred by him before the Rent Controller calling upon the tenant to produce the original lease-deed dated 14.10.2006 (explaining circumstances in which original deed had been taken by the tenant from the landlady) and its return was sought. Relevant averments made in the application by the landlady are reproduced as below:- “2. That the original lease deed dated 14.10.2006 was temporary taken by the respondent Shri Rakesh Dwedi for the purpose of obtaining the sale tax number purpose as well as for getting a Ration Card and gas connection as a proof office residence in Faridabad for some other purpose. 3. That the applicant handed over the lease deed in question to the respondent under good faith as the respondent assured to return the same as soon as work is done. 4. That ever since the respondent has not returned the original lease deed to the applicant so far as such the said original lease deed is not under the possession and power of the applicant. 5. That the necessity to get the lease deed produced from the respondent has arisen so as to prove the contents of terms and condition of the said lease deed in the above eviction petition so as to prove this case.” 7. 5. That the necessity to get the lease deed produced from the respondent has arisen so as to prove the contents of terms and condition of the said lease deed in the above eviction petition so as to prove this case.” 7. In reply to such application of the landlady, tenant took exception to the application and denying execution of any such document, canvassed that production of such document was out of question. Stand of the tenant in his reply dated 05.09.2012 (Annexure P-4) is reproduced for quick reference as under:- “2. That the contents of para No.2 of the application are wrong, false and vehemently denied. There has never been handed over any alleged lease deed dated 14.10.2006, as the same has never been executed between the applicant and the respondent. All the story mentioned in this para is concocted and frivolous. The photocopies of the alleged lease deed is a fabricated document, and manufactured document which is nonest in the eyes of law. All the facts have been fully detailed and described in the written statement filed by the respondent, in which it has been clearly mentioned that there was no lease deed executed on the alleged date i.e. 14.10.2006. 3. That the averments mentioned in para No.3 of the application are wrong, false and specifically denied. 4. That the averments mentioned in para No.4 of the application are wrong, false and vehemently denied. Since there was never executed any alleged lease deed, hence the question of returning the same does not arise, as it is never in possession of the respondent, hence application merits dismissal.” 8. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that mandatory notice calling upon the tenant to produce the document had not been given and thus, permission to lead secondary evidence could not have been granted. Support has been sought from M/s Enn Ess Electronic Jalandhar & ors Vs. Smt. Harbans Kaur & ors. 2009 (1) Civil Court Cases, 237. In this authority, it has been held that in terms of provisions of Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called as ‘Evidence Act’), a party seeking to lead secondary evidence is required to call upon the party in whose possession the document is to produce the same and only thereafter, an application can be moved for leading secondary evidence. As has already been noticed, complying with provisions of Section 66 of the Evidence Act, vide application of 18.05.2012 (Annexure P-3) the landlady had called upon the tenant to produce the original lease-deed. A tough stand had been taken by the tenant vide reply dated 05.09.2012 (Annexure P-4) and he had refused to produce the original lease deed taking a stand that he had never executed any such document. He showed his inability to produce the same. In these circumstances, there was compliance of provisions of Section 66 of the Evidence Act. 9. Counsel for the petitioner, in making reference to H. Siddiqui (D) By Lrs. Vs. A. Ramalingam 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 385 (SC) and U. Sree Vs. S.Srinivas [2013(1) Law Herald (SC) 169 : 2013(1) Marriage L.J. 63 (SC)] : 2013 (1) RCR (Civil) 883 (SC) has urged that permission to adduce secondary evidence is to be given only when factual foundation has been laid for giving secondary evidence. In other words, its not permissible for the Court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence if the limitations imposed by Section 65 of the Evidence Act are complied with. There is no dispute of the law and there cannot be any. At this stage, reference may be made to Section 65 (a) of the Evidence Act which is reproduced as below:- “65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. - Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:- (a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or powerof the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it;” 10. When reply furnished by the tenant for production of the original lease-deed of 14.10.2006, relevant portion whereof has been reproduced earlier, is perused little more closely, it transpires that the tenant had alleged that the lease-deed is fabricated and it is claimed that photocopy of the lease-deed was a manufactured and fabricated document. 11. There is consistent case of the landlady that the tenant was incepted in possession of the premises vide lease agreement of 14.10.2006. 11. There is consistent case of the landlady that the tenant was incepted in possession of the premises vide lease agreement of 14.10.2006. A notice in terms of Section 66 of the Evidence Act seeking production of the original was given vide application (Annexure P-3). This foundation has sufficiently been laid by disclosing the circumstances in which the possession of the original was with the tenant and how the same was conceded to be produced by him. However, the tenant has denied possession of the said document and has even claimed to have never executed the same. 12. In the backdrop of these facts and circumstances when the landlady has sufficiently explained the circumstances vide which in terms of provisions of Section 65 (a) of the Evidence Act, the lease-deed has been shown to be in possession of the tenant from whom the said document is sought to be produced during proceedings of the eviction petition and that he is legally bound to produce it but, however, has denied the same in reply to notice under Section 66 of the Evidence Act. Conditions provided for allowing of secondary evidence have been duly complied with by the landlady and secondary evidence in terms of Section 65 is permissible not only about ‘condition’ or ‘contents’ of a document but also about its ‘existence’ and ‘execution’ thereof. 13. Once photocopy of the lease-deed was produced on the record and it has been conceded by the tenant in reply (Annexure P-4) but with a further stand that the same was forged and manufactured document, case of leading secondary evidence was made out. Merely because the order of the lower Court is short and crisp though it takes into account the facts and circumstances of the case before allowing permission to lead secondary evidence, it can neither be faltered on facts nor even on law. 14. It is, however, to be mentioned that permission to lead secondary evidence is one thing whereas relevancy, admissibility, probative value and worth of any piece of evidence are totally different and distinct aspects which remain open for the Rent Controller to adjudicate in the context of circumstances and pleas to be put forth by the parties. 15. Sequelly, the present writ petition being without any merit, is dismissed. 16. Since the petition is pending since 2007, trial Court is directed to expedite adjudication of the same within three months. 15. Sequelly, the present writ petition being without any merit, is dismissed. 16. Since the petition is pending since 2007, trial Court is directed to expedite adjudication of the same within three months. ---------0.B.S.0------------