Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1025 (RAJ)

Pawan Kumar Acharya v. Om Prakash Vyas

2016-07-20

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') in Case No.113/2014, whereby the objection raised by the petitioners for marking photostat of agreement of sale dated 08.11.1995 as Exhibit-P/8 has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 filed an application under the provisions of Rent Control Act, 2001 before the tribunal for evicting the petitioners from premises in question claiming himself landlord and the petitioners as tenant. Reply to the application was filed by the petitioners denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and it was also claimed that the respondent No.1 is not the owner of the premises in question. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the tribunal has framed as many as seven issues. 3. The respondent has filed an affidavit before the tribunal on 14.11.2014 and appeared before the tribunal for recording his statement on 10.12.2015 as AW-1. During the course of recording of statement, the respondent sought to produce the photostat of two documents as Exhibit-7 and 8, one agreement to sale dated 17.03.1986 said to have been executed in favour of one Shri Ashok Kumar, father of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 and another agreement to sale dated 08.11.1995, said to have been executed by him in favour of the respondent. 4. At this stage, the petitioners have raised objections that the said documents cannot be exhibited as they are photostat only and filed their written objection. In the written objections, the petitioners have objected only for exhibiting photostat of agreement to sale dated 08.11.1995 said to have been executed in favour of respondent by Late Shri Ashok Kumar, however, no objection has been raised regarding the photostat of agreement to sale dated 17.03.1986 said to have been executed in favour of Late Shri Ashok Kumar. 5. The tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners has rejected the objections of the petitioners while observing that the petitioners cannot raise objection regarding the marking of photostat of agreement to sale dated 08.11.1995 when they are not objecting for marking of the photostat of another agreement to sale dated 17.03.1986 as Exhibit-7. 5. The tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners has rejected the objections of the petitioners while observing that the petitioners cannot raise objection regarding the marking of photostat of agreement to sale dated 08.11.1995 when they are not objecting for marking of the photostat of another agreement to sale dated 17.03.1986 as Exhibit-7. The trial court has observed that the petitioners have not filed the objection with clean hands because they have not objected for marking the photostat of agreement to sale executed in their favour but are objecting for marking of another photostat of agreement to sale executed in favour of the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the photostat of agreement to sale dated 08.11.1995 sought to be produced by the respondent as Exhibit-8 is not admissible in evidence and therefore, the tribunal cannot mark it as an exhibit. It is argued that the agreement to sale dated 08.11.1995 being unregistered and insufficient in stamps and even cannot be relied for collateral purposes, therefore, the order passed by the tribunal on 03.05.2016 may kindly be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court at Principle Seat Jodhpur and Jaipur Bench rendered in Kamlesh Chanwala v. Khema @ Khemchand & Ors. reported in 2011(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1048, Mohanlal v. Manbhari & Ors. reported in 2013(1) DNJ (Raj.) 431, Sanwar Lal Rai v. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr. reported in 2013(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1148 and Laxmi Kanwar (Smt.) & Anr. v. Mahesh Kumar & Ors. reported in 2016(1) DNJ (Raj.) 236. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. 9. It is not in dispute that two photostat agreements to sale dated 17.03.1986 and 08.11.1995 were produced by the respondent for marking them as Exhibits – 7 and 8 before the tribunal at the time of recording of his evidence on 10.12.2015. The petitioners have submitted written objection and opposed the marking of photostat of agreement to sale dated 08.11.1995 as Exhibit-8, however, no objection regarding the photostat of agreement to sale dated 17.03.1986 has been raised. 10. The petitioners have submitted written objection and opposed the marking of photostat of agreement to sale dated 08.11.1995 as Exhibit-8, however, no objection regarding the photostat of agreement to sale dated 17.03.1986 has been raised. 10. This Court is of the opinion that the tribunal has rightly rejected the objections of the petitioners while taking into consideration that the petitioners are not raising any objection regarding photostat agreement to sale dated 17.03.1986, which is in their favour and only raising objections regarding marking of photostat of agreement to sale dated 08.11.1995 executed in favour of the respondent. 11. So far as the admissibility of the photostat of the agreement to sale is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the tribunal will certainly take into consideration the admissibility of unregistered documents at the time of final decision of the case. Marking of the document itself is not sufficient to hold that the said document is admissible in evidence and it is always open for the petitioners to argue before the tribunal regarding the inadmissibility of those documents in evidence at the time of final decision of the case. 12. There is no quarrel about the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the judgments referred above by learned counsel for the petitioners, however, the facts of the referred cases are quite distinguishable from the facts of this case and, therefore, the same are of no help to the petitioners. It is further reiterated that the marking of a document itself will not make it admissible in evidence and the petitioners have all the rights to raise objections regarding the admissibility of the marked document in evidence at the time of final hearing of the case. 13. With these observations, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Stay petition also stands dismissed.