Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 243 (KER)

K. A. Prem v. K. Madhu

2016-02-29

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, P.N.RAVINDRAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : P.N. Ravindran, J. The petitioners are the tenants in R.C.P. No. 143 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, a petition filed by the respondent/landlord for an order of eviction under section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short. The tenants had, after they entered appearance and filed a counter statement, filed I.A. No. 10047 of 2015 (Ext.P1 in the instant original petition) praying for an order directing the landlord who was joined as the respondent in the said application to produce the following documents: "1. Attested copies of the audited Balance Sheets of M/s KPK & Sons for the assessment years 1994-1995 to 2014-15. 2. Attested copies of the Income Tax Returns filed by M/s KPK & Sons before the Income Tax Department for the assessment years 1994-1995 to 2014-2015. 3. Attested copies of the Sales Tax Returns filed by M/s KPK & Sons before the Commercial Taxes Department for the years 1994-1995 to 2014-2015." That application was heard and allowed by the rent control court by order passed on 18.11.2015. Pursuant thereto, the landlord produced along with Ext.P3 list of documents dated 25.11.2015, attested copies of the returns submitted by him under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 2. The tenants thereupon filed I.A. No. 11293 of 2015 in the rent control court praying for an order directing the Registry to deliver to them certified copies/photocopies of all the documents produced by the landlord along with the list of documents dated 25.11.2015. The landlord did not oppose the said application by filing a counter statement. The rent control court after considering the application passed Ext.P6 order dated 1.1.2016 whereby it permitted the petitioners or their counsel to inspect the documents produced by the landlord along with the memo dated 25.11.2015 in the presence of the Chief Ministerial Officer or any other staff on duty between 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on 5.1.2016 and 6.1.2016. The Chief Ministerial Officer was directed to make all necessary arrangements to comply with the said direction. The Chief Ministerial Officer was directed to make all necessary arrangements to comply with the said direction. The rent control court thereupon recorded as follows in the B diary maintained in R.C.P. No. 143 of 2014: "I.A. No. 11293/2015 disposed of permitting respondents/their counsel to inspect the documents produced by the petitioner in the presence of CMO/any plaintiff authorised by him between 2 pm to 5 pm on 05.1.2016 and 06.1.2016. For any further pre trial steps as last chance to 22.01.2016." In this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the tenants challenge Ext.P6 order and pray for an order directing the rent control court to issue certified copies of all the documents produced by the landlord along with Ext.P3 list of documents. 3. Relying on Rule 111 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala it is contended that the petitioners have a right to inspect any document filed in court and obtain copies thereof, that there is no prohibition either in the Code of Civil Procedure or in the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala prohibiting the grant of certified copies of any document produced in court and therefore, the rent control court erred in holding that the documents produced are only copies of originals which are with the departments concerned. The petitioners also dispute the correctness of the statement in the impugned order that learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had during the course of the hearing submitted that it will be sufficient if the parties or their counsel are permitted to inspect the documents so as to prepare for their defence. 4. Rule 111 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala reads as follows: "111. Inspection of document.- A party shall be at liberty to inspect, and obtain a copy of any document filed in Court." Rule 111 stipulates that a party shall be at liberty to inspect, and obtain a copy of any document filed in court. Rule 239 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala stipulates that any person entitled to obtain a copy of any proceeding or document filed in or in the custody of the Court, may present an application therefor as in Form No.47 setting out the name of the applicant, his position in the suit or proceeding if he is a party thereto, and the description of the document of which copy is required. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 111 however stipulates that copies of Judge's minutes or of correspondence, and other papers not strictly judicial will be granted only under orders of the Judge. Interpreting the aforesaid provision contained in Rule 239 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala, a learned single Judge of this court has in Damodaran Nair v. Cheriyotti Amma [ 2011 (2) KLT 619 ] held that the question whether the certified copy of part of a document is admissible or not is not relevant while issuing the certified copy of the same and that the admissibility or otherwise of a document into evidence is not a matter to be considered by the court while issuing the certified copy. It was held that the admissibility or otherwise of a document into evidence is a matter to be decided by the court before which the document is produced in evidence. 5. It is evident from the materials before us that the contents of the 34 documents produced by the landlord along with Ext.P3 list of documents dated 25.11.2015 are sought to be relied on by the tenants in support of their contention that the need put forward by the landlord is not bonafide. The rent control court has permitted only inspection of documents on the premise that during the course of the hearing, learned counsel appearing for the tenants had submitted that it would be sufficient if the tenants or their counsel are permitted to inspect the documents. The documents produced are voluminous. The rent control petition was not listed for trial on 1.1.2016. It was listed for trial on 4.3.2016 by order passed on 22.1.2016. Being voluminous documents, the parties cannot be compelled to rely solely on their memory or the notes taken by them or their counsel after inspecting the documents for the purpose of cross-examining the landlord. In such circumstances, as the Civil Rules of Practice do not prohibit a party to a litigation from inspecting and obtaining copies of the documents provided in court, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to a certified copy as prayed for by them. In such circumstances, as the Civil Rules of Practice do not prohibit a party to a litigation from inspecting and obtaining copies of the documents provided in court, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to a certified copy as prayed for by them. The mere fact that the counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that it will be enough if the parties or their counsel are permitted to inspect the documents would not in our opinion stand in the way of the party from obtaining a certified copy. The question whether the copies produced by the landlord (the originals of the said documents are in the custody of the Income Tax Department/Commercial Taxes Department) are admissible in evidence is a matter which need not be gone into at the stage of issuing the certified copy. The admissibility of the documents produced by the landlord is a matter which has to be gone into at the time of trial as held by the learned single Judge in Damodaran Nair v. Cheriyotti Amma (supra). We are therefore of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to have certified copies of the documents produced by the landlord along with the list of documents dated 25.11.2015 issued, on payment of the requisite charges. We accordingly allow this original petition and in supersession of Ext.P6 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam on 1.1.2016 on I.A. No. 11293 of 2015 in R.C.P. No. 143 of 2014 direct the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam to issue certified copies of the documents produced by the landlord along with the list of documents dated 25.11.2015 on usual terms, within three days from the date on which an application for certified copy of the aforesaid documents is submitted. Registry to issue certified copy of this judgment if applied for to learned counsel on both sides today itself and to communicate the judgment to the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam.