Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2448 (ALL)

Anil Kumar v. Subhash Chandra Rastogi

2015-08-17

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.7.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby application 272 Ga filed by the tenant for production of original 'Will' relied upon by the respondent Subhash Chandra Rastogi, has been rejected. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that relationship of landlord and tenant has been denied since the very beginning by filing written statement.The Will alleged to have been executed in favour of respondent Subhash Chandra Rastogi by late Munna Lal has been challenged. The contention is that only photocopy of the Will has been filed by the respondent Subhash Chandra Agarwal before the Appellate Court below which was accepted to conclude that he was landlord of the premises in question. It is contended that the photocopy of the Will can not be read in evidence under section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and the respondent was required to produce original registered Will to establish that he was owner of the premises in question. As the Will has not been produced, it could not be considered as true by the court below. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. It is found that the respondent, Subhash Chandra Rastogi had produced photocopy of the registered Will in his name executed by late Munna Lal, who was admittedly the landlord of the premises in question. The genuineness of the Will can not be questioned by Rent Control Court. However, in deciding the relationship of landlord and tenant the Rent Control Court could only look to the document to see whether it is valid document or not.The Will has not been challenged by the tenant on the ground that it has not been registered in the office of Sub-Registrar. Further the appellate authority has also found that the Will has not been challenged by any person claiming to be heir of late Munna Lal. It has also been found that the original Will has been filed by the respondent Subhash Chandra Rastogi as paper No. 41 Ga in the pending SCC suit No. 25 of 2006 between Subhash Chandra Rastogi with another tenant. It has also been found that the original Will has been filed by the respondent Subhash Chandra Rastogi as paper No. 41 Ga in the pending SCC suit No. 25 of 2006 between Subhash Chandra Rastogi with another tenant. In view of these facts the Appellate Authority has rightly found that the respondent, Subhash Chandra Rastogi cannot be compelled to produce the original Will.The Will can be proved by filing affidavits and certified copy in evidence. 6. No interference is required in the order impugned. The order impugned is perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition is dismissed.