Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1419 (PNJ)

Inderjeet Aggarwal v. Manoj Aeri

2014-10-13

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

body2014
Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. 1. Dismissal of application (Annexure P-2) of the landlord to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert to get the disputed signatures of the tenants on the disputed receipts of rent compared with their admitted signatures on various other documents, vide order dated 6.9.2010 of the Rent Controller has resulting in filing of this revision petition by him. It is claimed by the petitioner-landlord that examination of expert witness is necessary because relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had been denied by the tenants, whereas rental receipts signed by the tenants are available with the landlord and are to be proved against them. 2. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the paper book. 3. Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is the very foundation of the case of the tenants as put forth in their written statement. By examining their expert, the tenants thus had sprung no surprise on the landlord. If the landlord was to prove the rental receipts allegedly executed by the tenants (execution of which had been denied by them right from the very beginning), the landlord was to produce his expert witness in his affirmative evidence itself without waiting for the handwriting expert to be examined by the tenants. 4. Right from the time of filing of the petition for eviction of the tenants on 10.9.2004 and of refuting the denial of the tenants of execution of such receipts as also of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in replication of 18.2.2005, it was well within the knowledge of the landlord that he was to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert. Plea of the landlord that necessity for examining his expert arose only after examination of handwriting expert by the tenants thus, is totally a misfounded assertion. 5. It was in these circumstances that this Court while deciding Civil Revision Petition No. 4575 of 2010 in order dated 26.7.2010 had held that there cannot be evidence of the landlord in rebuttal to the evidence led by the tenants. Consequently, upholding the earlier order of the Rent Controller, the landlord was given an opportunity to file an application for leading additional evidence instead of producing the handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence. Consequently, upholding the earlier order of the Rent Controller, the landlord was given an opportunity to file an application for leading additional evidence instead of producing the handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence. Observations made by this Court in order dated 26.7.2010 are to the following effect: "The journey of the Court is to find truth. Nobody can suffer for his lapse if the same was bonafide. Even though the petitioner/landlord ought to be vigilant, but it is a common knowledge that mistakes do occur. For any lapse or mistake, nobody can be punished as the Court has to take its own course to find the truth. Therefore, in these circumstances, in case an application for leading additional evidence is filed, the same shall be duly considered by the Rent Controller, Ferozepur, according to the provisions of law." 6. The question now requiring answer is as to whether the evidence sought to be produced by the landlord is necessary for competent and effective adjudication of the matter in controversy or not? 7. Notwithstanding the fact of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties right at the very beginning in their written statement by the tenants, it remains a fact that case of the landlord hinges on the rental receipts allegedly executed by the tenants in token of payment of rent to the landlord for the premises in dispute. No doubt, the landlord was required to produce his expert witness in affirmative evidence and was rightly disallowed to lead such evidence in rebuttal but the evidence sought to be produced by the petitioner is not only necessary but rather forms the very foundation of proof of his case. This evidence is also going to be helpful to the Rent Controller for competent and effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties. In K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 875 (Supreme Court), it has been held that even when the trial of the case has been concluded and the arguments had been heard, there is no bar with the court to permit fresh evidence if such evidence is relevant to render justice and its non-production would prejudice the party. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that in such an eventuality, it would be competent for the court to award appropriate costs to compensate the delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that in such an eventuality, it would be competent for the court to award appropriate costs to compensate the delay. Support may also be sought from Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, 2005 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 530 : 2005 (3) Civil Court Cases 420 (SC). 8. Counsel for the respondents/tenants has urged that since evidence was concluded by the landlord volitionally, no case is made out for examining any further witness and particularly when handwriting expert's opinion in respect of comparison of signatures is not perfect. Reference in this regard has been made to Kuldeep Singh v. Harmander Singh, 2010 (5) RCR (Civil) 644 (P&H) and Vijayant son of Sh. Om Parkash and another v. Smt. Attar Kaur wife of late Rati Ram, 2013 (3) PLR 257 (P&H). 9. Since evidence sought to be produced by the landlord, petitioner herein by way of additional evidence forms foundation for sustenance and support of his pleadings to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, which relationship has consistently been denied by the respondents-tenants despite the receipts allegedly having been executed by them regarding payment of rent to the landlord, is of essential nature and the same deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 10. No doubt, the application for additional evidence was made by the landlord at belated stage. Even if any delay has been caused, it is the landlord who himself is the sufferer and no prejudice is being caused to the tenants when they can be compensated by payment of costs by other party. 11. Consequently, finding merit in this revision petition, the impugned order (Annexure P-4) is reversed. Sequelly, this revision petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of ` 10,000/- to be paid to the opposite side. The parties shall appear before the lower court on 10.11.2014.