Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 492 (BOM)

V. M. Jankiamma v. Ajit Laxmikant Mudgal

2020-03-03

A.S.GADKARI

body2020
ORDER : A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. By the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/original defendants have impugned Order dated 4th July, 2018 passed below Exhibit-17 under Order 11, Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure, in Civil Suit No. 339 of 2017 filed by the respondents/original plaintiffs under the provisions of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, "said Act"), for eviction of the petitioners from the suit property on the ground of bona fide requirement, non user, hardship and other related grounds. 2. Heard Mr. Pungalia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The record reveals that, the respondents have instituted the said Civil Suit No. 339 of 2017 against the petitioners under the said Act, for their eviction from the suit property on the grounds of bonafide requirement, non user, hardship and other related grounds. In the written statement the petitioners have admitted, they have acquired another property bearing Plot No. 2 situated in Sangeeta Co-operative Housing Society Limited at Hingane Bk., Tal. Haveli, District Pune. The respondents therefore filed an application under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code, below Exhibit-17 for direction to the petitioners/defendants to produce the documents which are specifically mentioned in para No. 6 of the said application. The petitioners filed reply to the said application and opposed the same. The Trial Court by its impugned Order dated 4th July 2018 has allowed the said application partly and has directed the petitioners to produce documents mentioned Sr. Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 7 and 8 (i.e. (a) to (c), (e), (g) and (h) as per Order) in para-6 of the said application. 4. Mr. Pungalia, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, calling upon the petitioners to produce the said documents is not necessary for the respondents to prove their case. He submitted that, the petitioners have admitted in their written statement that, they have acquired the property mentioned in para No. 6(1) of the said application. He submitted that, the lease- deed dated 7th February, 2005 is a registered document with the Sub-Registrar, Haveli No. 15 and the respondents can obtain a 'Certified Copy' of the same being a 'public document' from the concerned authority. He submitted that, the lease- deed dated 7th February, 2005 is a registered document with the Sub-Registrar, Haveli No. 15 and the respondents can obtain a 'Certified Copy' of the same being a 'public document' from the concerned authority. He submitted that, the respondents intends to prove their case by calling upon the petitioners to produce the said documents mentioned in para No. 6. He submitted that, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the request of the respondents for production of documents at Sr. No. 4 i.e. Passport of the Petitioners and at Sr. No. 6 i.e. Income Tax Return of the petitioners for the last ten years being the documents of personal nature. He further submitted that, the rest of the documents are also of personal nature and the Trial Court ought not have directed the petitioners to produce the same by the impugned Order. He therefore prayed that, the impugned Order may be set aside by allowing the present Petition. 5. Per contra, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondents/original plaintiffs vehemently opposed the Petition and submitted that, the said documents are necessary for further proving the case of the respondents/petitioners, that the petitioners have purchased another property being Plot No. 2 situated in Sangeeta Co-operative Housing Society Limited at Hingane Bk., Tal. Haveli, District Pune. He submitted that, though the petitioners have admitted the fact that, they have purchased the said property, to lend further credence to the said statement made by them on oath, it is necessary for production of those documents. He submitted that, the Petition has no merits and be dismissed summarily. 6. At the outset, it is to be noted here that, though the petitioners have admitted in their written statement that, they have acquired additional property i.e. Plot No. 2 situated in Sangeeta Co-operative Housing Society Limited at Hingane Bk., Tal. Haveli, District Pune, they have not produced the said documents on record in support of their contention. Thus in that circumstances, the respondents have filed the said application below Exhibit-17 under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code calling upon the petitioners to produce the documents mentioned in para No. 6 of the said application. The production of documents mentioned in the impugned Order by the petitioners is otherwise also necessary for the just decision of the Suit filed by the respondents. 7. The production of documents mentioned in the impugned Order by the petitioners is otherwise also necessary for the just decision of the Suit filed by the respondents. 7. The Trial Court in impugned Order has held that, the documents at Sr. No. 4 and 6 are of personal and confidential nature and no public officer can be compelled to produce them. The Trial Court has further observed that, the documents which have impugned at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 are necessary for just decision of the said Suit. I concur with the finding recorded by the Trial Court. I further find that, there is no error either in law or on facts committed by the Trial Court while passing the impugned Order dated 4th July, 2018 below Exhibit-17 in Civil Suit No. 339 of 2017. 8. Petition being dehors of merits is accordingly dismissed in limine.