ORDER : NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. 1. All the above mentioned writ petitions are decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical. 2. The respondent/non-applicant filed a petition under Sections 9, 18 and 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against the petitioner-tenant before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan. The petitioner-tenant filed his reply denying that the rent of the suit premises was Rs. 2,500/- per month and came with the case that the shop in dispute was taken on rent @ Rs. 5/- per month 60 years ago and the present rent was @ Rs. 95/- per month. The petitioner filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of CPC stating that the entries regarding the receipt of the rent were taken away by the respondent-landlord and the same were lying in his power and possession, and therefore, sought direction for production of the same. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 04/07/2017. Thereafter, another application was moved under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act stating that the note book of the co-tenant in which entries regarding receipt of rent were made by the respondent-landlord was taken by him in the name of making entries which he did not return back, and therefore, sought permission to produce the photocopies of the entries made by the petitioner-tenant himself in his registers with respect to the payment of rent as secondary evidence. However, said application was also dismissed vide order dated 03/10/2017 which is impugned herein. 3. While praying for setting aside the impugned order as also seeking permission to produce the said entry in the Register as secondary evidence, reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Nawab Singh v. Inderjit Kaur, 1999 (3) Civil Court Cases 1 (S.C). 4. For proper adjudication, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The same reads as under:— “65. 4. For proper adjudication, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The same reads as under:— “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 power— of 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; (b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable; (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74; (f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in [India] to be given in evidence; (g) when the originals consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents”. 5. It is evident that the case of the petitioner for producing the secondary evidence does not fall in any manner of the conditions referred in Section 65. The respondent-landlord had specifically filed his reply stating that no such receipt was issued by him. 5. It is evident that the case of the petitioner for producing the secondary evidence does not fall in any manner of the conditions referred in Section 65. The respondent-landlord had specifically filed his reply stating that no such receipt was issued by him. The very existence was denied although admitted that the rent was being paid in cash. Moreover, even on merits and even as per Section 65, there cannot be any presumption that a receipt issued to the tenant should be in the possession of the landlord. There is no dispute with the judgment relied by the petitioner-tenant. However, each case depends on each facts of the case. In the said case, the rent note sought to be produced by the applicant was held to be doubtful veracity, and therefore, the same was dismissed on the said ground which the Apex Court set aside being not appropriate reason to dismiss the application. In the present case, as discussed above, the case of the petitioner for producing the secondary evidence does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Accordingly, this court finds no ground to interfere in the impugned order. 6. Dismissed accordingly.