Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 118 (RAJ)

Chetan Kumar v. Hamida Bai

2019-01-09

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 28.09.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Salumber (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court'), whereby petitioner's application dated 28.09.2018 submitted under Order XI Rules 12 & 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 2. The facts pertinent to present petition are that the plaintiff respondent No.1 herein had filed a suit for eviction and recovery of the arrears of rent, after giving notice under Section 106 of Transfer of the Property Act to the defendant petitioner herein. 3. The plaintiff had inter alia asserted that she had given her two shops to the defendant at the rent of 3300/- per month, in relation whereof rent note had not been prepared by the defendant. The plaintiff not only sought recovery of the arrears of rent from 21.09.2009, but also sought order of eviction of the defendant. 4. The defendant petitioner herein filed a written statement along with a counter claim and asserted that the shops in question had been purchased by him for a sum of Rs.20,52,000/- on 12.11.2011 and document / receipt in relation thereto had been executed. 5. Subsequent thereto, petitioner moved an application under Order XI Rules 12 & 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and contended that many documents such as rent receipt of earlier period; note-book (memo of accounts); Bank passbook; invitation card of marriage of the plaintiff's daughter; documents relating to treatment of her husband; another rent note executed in favour of one Shakir Bhai; and discharge for mortgage be summoned as according to the petitioner they were relevant for the proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 6. The plaintiff's aforesaid application has been rejected by the trial court, vide its order impugned, inter alia observing that the suit in question was only for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction filed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act; for which the documents mentioned in the application were hardly of any relevance. 7. 6. The plaintiff's aforesaid application has been rejected by the trial court, vide its order impugned, inter alia observing that the suit in question was only for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction filed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act; for which the documents mentioned in the application were hardly of any relevance. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner calling the order dated 28.09.2018 in question, contended that the trial court has erred in rejecting petitioner's application under Order XI Rules 12 & 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as the documents mentioned therein were not only relevant but were essential for complete and proper adjudication of the issues before the trial court. 8. He submitted that the trial court has completely ignored the fact that the petitioner defendant had also filed a counter claim for adjudication whereof the rent note, the diary / note-book etc were necessary, with the help of which he would prove the factum of payment and consequential receipt of Rs.20,52,000/- by the plaintiff. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, including the contentious application dated 28.09.2018. 10. A perusal of the application and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner leaves no room for ambiguity that the petitioner has called for unwarranted and unnecessary documents, which hardly have any bearing on the issues in the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent. 11. As far as, rent receipts of prior period are concerned, they cannot be of any help, particularly when the petitioner defendant has not disputed his tenancy in the suit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Needless to observe that nothing much is required to be adjudicated in such suit except that the relationship of landlord-tenant does exists between the parties. 12. As far as, the counter claim filed by the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is required to prove his own case. The petitioner wants to prove payment by way of summoning plaintiff's passbook and diary which is not only impermissible but also inconceivable in the eye of law. If the petitioner has made payment of a sum of Rs.20,52,000/-, the onus lies upon him to prove such fact. Other documents such as marriage card, documents of treatment, rent note in favour of another tenant etc. are equally irrelevant. 13. If the petitioner has made payment of a sum of Rs.20,52,000/-, the onus lies upon him to prove such fact. Other documents such as marriage card, documents of treatment, rent note in favour of another tenant etc. are equally irrelevant. 13. As an upshot of above discussion, finding no force in the present petition, I hereby dismiss the same.