Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1555 (HP)

Avtar Singh v. Roshan Lal

2019-10-21

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Two applications moved by the petitioner/tenant, i.e. (i) under Order VIII, Rule 1-A, sub-rule (3), read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short) for producing various documents on record of the case; and (ii) under Order 12 Rule 2, read with Section 151 C.P.C, praying for direction to landlord to admit/deny the documents, have been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller (Court No.1), Shimla, in case No.82-2 of 17/14, titled as Roshan Lal v. Avtar Singh. Aggrieved against the dismissal of these two applications, petitioner/tenant has preferred the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard Mr. Bhag Chand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jagat Paul, learned counsel, for the respondent and gone through the appended record. 3. Bare facts required for adjudication of the instant petition may be noticed hereinafter:- 3(i) The respondent/landlord moved an eviction petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the petitioner/tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent and that building in question is in dilapidated condition requiring rebuilding and reconstruction. The proceedings in the aforementioned eviction petition were going on when the petitioner/tenant moved two applications, i.e. (i) under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14, Order 12 Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC and; (ii) under Order 11 Rule 21 and Order 12 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 CPC. Both these applications seeking directions to the landlord to place certain documents on record, were dismissed by learned Rent Controller vide order dated 01.04.2015. Petitioner/tenant challenged the order dated 01.04.2015, before this Court in CMPMO No.140 of 2015, which was dismissed on 27.04.2016 (Annexure P-19). 3(ii) Consequent upon dismissal of CMPMO No.140 of 2015, the rent petition got revived, which was stayed during the pendency of above CMPMO No.140 of 2015. The matter was listed before the learned Rent Controller. On 12.12.2017, rejoinder was filed by the respondent/landlord. In the presence of learned counsel for the parties, the issues were also framed on that day and the case was ordered to be listed for respondent/landlord's evidence on 20.01.2018. When the matter was taken up on 20.01.2018 by the learned Rent Controller for recording the evidence of the respondent/landlord, two applications in question were moved by the petitioner/tenant. In the presence of learned counsel for the parties, the issues were also framed on that day and the case was ordered to be listed for respondent/landlord's evidence on 20.01.2018. When the matter was taken up on 20.01.2018 by the learned Rent Controller for recording the evidence of the respondent/landlord, two applications in question were moved by the petitioner/tenant. In one of the application, prayer was made for producing various documents on record and in the other, prayer was made for directing the respondent/landlord to admit/deny the documents produced by the petitioner/tenant. Both the applications were dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 23.02.2018 impugned in the instant petition. Reasoning: 4. (i) I am of the considered view that impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or material irregularity for the following reasons:- 4(i)(a) The factum of availability of documents with the petitioner/tenant under Right to Information Act has not disputed in the present petition. Learned Rent Controller has observed that documents sought to be produced by the petitioner/tenant were obtained by him under Right to Information Act on 22.06.2016. In case, the tenant considered the documents to be necessary, then the same should have been brought on record of the eviction petition much earlier. Eviction petition was filed in 2014. There was no justification for the same having not been brought on record earlier. 4(i)(b) No cogent explanation has been offered for not placing the documents in question on record before the framing of issues, when the same were in possession of the petitioner/tenant. Issues were framed in presence of learned counsel for the parties. CMPMO No.140 of 2015 filed by the petitioner/tenant was dismissed by this Court on 27.04.2016, yet the applications in question came to be filed only after the framing of issues, at the time of recording of evidence of the respondent/landlord. 4(i)(c) Provisions of Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, provide that when a document ought to be produced in the Court by the defendant under this Rule is not so produced, then the same shall not without leave of the Court be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. The applications filed by the petitioner/tenant, do not offer any cogent explanation as to why the proposed documents were not produced earlier. The applications filed by the petitioner/tenant, do not offer any cogent explanation as to why the proposed documents were not produced earlier. Repeated applications being filed by the petitioner/tenant are only delaying the disposal of eviction petition. Powers under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) CPC are discretionary and not to be exercised in routine manner. The discretionary order passed by learned Rent Controller is not liable to be upset in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction unless the findings are perverse or the order suffers from jurisdictional error. Learned Court below in the facts and circumstances of the case had rightly exercised the jurisdiction in dismissing the applications. 4(i)(d) The application seeking direction to landlord to admit/deny the documents already on record of the case could be moved before the framing of issues. The application under Order 12 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 CPC was rightly rejected on the ground that issues had already been framed on 12.12.2017. 5. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before learned Rent Controller on 11.11.2019. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.