Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 934 (ALL)

Surendra Nath Garg v. Balbir Sharan Goyal

2020-06-08

SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Saral Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Sri Pramod Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The revision-applicant (hereinafter referred to as 'applicant') is the defendant and has assailed the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2018 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Agra in S.C.C. Suit No. 32 of 2013 (CNR No. UPAG01-005993-2013) whereby the Trial Court has decreed the suit. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') has instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 32 of 2013 against the applicant praying for a decree of eviction, arrears of rent, mesne profit and taxes. The plaint case was that the respondent is the owner and landlord of shop No. 1/31/C (hereinafter referred to as 'shop') situated on the ground floor in Amar Market, Johari Bazar, Agra. The respondent let out the shop to the applicant at a rent of Rs. 5,000/- plus taxes @ 31% i.e. Rs. 6,550/- per month. The applicant without the consent of the respondent joined two shops i.e. shop No. 1/31/C under his tenancy and shop No. 1/31/C-1 under the tenancy of one Raj Kumar Garg, nephew of the applicant, by removing the Pucca partition wall standing between the two shops. Consequently, the respondent sent a notice on 29.5.2012 terminating the tenancy which was duly served upon the applicant. The applicant after receiving the aforesaid notice approached the respondent and admitted his fault in making material alteration in the shop and requested the respondent not to take any legal action against him and in lieu thereof, he offered rent of Rs. 5,000/- plus taxes per month of the shop to the respondent with effect from 1.4.2011 and assured him to restore the shop in original shape. The respondent accepted the aforesaid offer of the applicant on 15.6.2012. The applicant, thereafter, made payment of rent of Rs. 19,650/- of three months with effect from 1.4.2011 to 30.6.2011 @ Rs. 6,650/- per month (rent Rs. 5,000/- and taxes @ Rs. 1550/-). The respondent issued the receipt of payment of rent which was duly acknowledged by the applicant. 4. Further, the case of the respondent was that on 22.6.2012, he received a reply of notice dated 29.5.2012 sent by the respondent. 6,650/- per month (rent Rs. 5,000/- and taxes @ Rs. 1550/-). The respondent issued the receipt of payment of rent which was duly acknowledged by the applicant. 4. Further, the case of the respondent was that on 22.6.2012, he received a reply of notice dated 29.5.2012 sent by the respondent. On receiving the aforesaid reply, he immediately called the applicant on 22.6.2012 and informed him about the reply to the notice sent by the applicant. The applicant informed the respondent that the said reply was sent by his counsel due to lack of communication as he could not intimate his counsel about the compromise between them. The applicant requested the respondent to ignore the reply. On the same day i.e. on 22.6.2012, he made payment of Rs. 19,650/- of rent for three months for the period from 1.7.2011 to 30.9.2011. The respondent issued a proper receipt of the payment of rent duly acknowledged by the applicant. 5. It is further stated that the respondent has instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 59 of 2012 against Raj Kumar for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and taxes. The applicant upon hearing about the filing of the aforesaid suit approached the respondent on 23.10.2012 and made payment of Rs. 19,650/- towards rent and taxes for three months for the period of 1.10.2011 to 31.12.2011; the proper receipt was issued by the respondent in respect of the aforesaid payment which was duly acknowledged by the applicant. The applicant has not paid rent and taxes since 1.1.2012 despite repeated demands. Accordingly, the respondent sent a notice dated 11/12.1.2013 terminating the tenancy and demanding the arrears of rent, taxes etc. on the correct address of the respondent which was duly served upon the applicant on 14.1.2013. As the applicant failed to comply with the notice dated 11.1.2013, the respondent instituted the aforesaid suit for eviction and recovery of rent, taxes etc. 6. The suit was contested by the applicant by filing written statement contending inter alia that the rent of the shop was not Rs. 5,000/- per month plus taxes. The last rent of the shop was paid @ Rs. 12,00/- per month plus taxes and due receipt of payment of rent was issued by the respondent. The applicant also denied that he had carried out material alteration which caused substantial damage to the shop. 5,000/- per month plus taxes. The last rent of the shop was paid @ Rs. 12,00/- per month plus taxes and due receipt of payment of rent was issued by the respondent. The applicant also denied that he had carried out material alteration which caused substantial damage to the shop. It was also averred that the applicant never approached the respondent on 29.5.2012 or any other date and offered rent of Rs. 5,000/-. The alleged receipt issued by the respondent is forged and fabricated. The applicant denied his signature and thumb impression on the receipts. The fact of compromise between the parties settling the rent at Rs. 5,000/- plus 31% taxes have been denied by the applicant. It was further averred that the rent of the shop was Rs. 105/- per month on 16.7.1983. Thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs. 140/- on 1.4.1987. According to the defendant, periodical enhancement of the rent was done. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 1200/- per month plus taxes with effect from 1.4.2009 and Rs. 1440 plus taxes from 1.4.2012. 7. Based on pleadings between the parties, the following five issues were framed by the Trial Court: "1. Whether the monthly rent for the shop in question was Rs. 5000/- and taxes? 2. Whether the defendant has committed any default in making payment of rent to the plaintiff since 1.1.2012. 3. Whether the notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendant for termination of tenancy is duly served on the defendant and the tenancy is terminated by the notice. 4. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear this suit. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief." 8. The respondent in support of his case filed three original rent receipt dated 15.6.2012 (paper No. 21C/1), rent receipt dated 22.6.2012 (paper No. 21C/2) and rent receipt dated 23.10.2012 (paper No. 21C/3) which according to the respondent are original counterfoils of the receipts dated 15.6.2012, 22.6.2012, 23.10.2012 (for convenience paper No. 21C/1 to 21C/3 referred as 'rent receipts' as referred by the trial Court), report of Rajkumar Shrotriya, handwriting expert and produced himself as PW1 and Handwriting expert Rajkumar Shrotriya. Besides above, several other documentary evidence has been filed by the respondent, reference of which is not relevant. 9. Besides above, several other documentary evidence has been filed by the respondent, reference of which is not relevant. 9. The applicant in support of his case filed various rent receipts in the original, report of handwriting expert Satish Chandra Varshney, produced himself as D.W.-1, Mukesh Kumar Khandewal D.W.-2 and expert Satish Chandra Varshney. 10. The trial Court decided issue Nos. 1 and 4 jointly. The Trial Court considered the documentary and oral evidence of both the parties threadbare and held that the expert report of the applicant is not credible and the rent of the shop is Rs. 5,000/- per month, therefore, the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 does not apply to the shop. 11. The issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the respondent as the Trial Court based on evidence and material on record found that the applicant is in arrears of rent since 1.1.2012, therefore, he has defaulted in payment of rent. The Trial Court found that the notice terminating the tenancy was duly served upon the applicant and the applicant did not abide by the notice. Consequently, it decided the issue No. 3 also in favour of the respondent. Accordingly, the Trial Court decided issue No. 5 in favour of the respondent and decreed the suit. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has assailed the finding on the issue No. 1. 13. Challenging the finding on the aforesaid issue, learned Senior Counsel contended that the rent of the shop was Rs. 1200/- plus taxes which was enhanced to Rs. 1440/- per month from 1.4.2012 is evident from the notice dated 29.5.2012 of the respondent. He further submits that the Trial Court has not given any reason for rejecting the expert report and testimony of the Expert Sri Satish Chandra Varshney produced by the applicant which proved the three rent receipts paper No. 21C/1 to paper No. 21C/3 are forged and fabricated. 14. His further submission is that the trial Court has reiterated the expert report of the respondent which is evident from paragraph No. 28 of the judgment and has not given any independent reason to record the finding that the three rent receipts, paper No. 21C/1 to paper No. 21C/3 bear signature and thumb impression of the applicant. 14. His further submission is that the trial Court has reiterated the expert report of the respondent which is evident from paragraph No. 28 of the judgment and has not given any independent reason to record the finding that the three rent receipts, paper No. 21C/1 to paper No. 21C/3 bear signature and thumb impression of the applicant. It is further contended that the respondent has filed original rent receipts paper No. 21C/1 to paper No. 21C/3 instead of receipt book containing the counterfoils of the alleged rent receipts, this act of the respondent shows that the aforesaid rent receipts are obviously forged, consequently, the trial Court in the absence of receipt book should have drawn adverse inference under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence against the respondent. It is also urged that the alleged compromise between the parties have not been proved. 15. In the light of the above submission, Counsel for the applicant argues that the trial Court erroneously relied upon the rent receipt paper No. 21C/1 to paper No. 21C/3 and expert report of Raj Kumar Shrotriya to hold the rent of the shop is Rs. 5000/- per month plus taxes @ 31%. The counsel for the applicant has relied upon paragraph 86 to 89 of the judgment in the case of Union of India and others v. Devendra Kumar Chaudhary, MANU/UP/3550/2018 : 2018 (9) ADJ 570 , as to what is the evidentiary value of the expert opinion in a case. 16. It is lastly argued that since the trial Court has committed patent illegality in decreeing the suit, therefore, the impugned order warrants interference by this Court in exercise its revision power under Section 25 of The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. In support of the aforesaid submission, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments: "(i) Ram Marti Devi v. Pushpa Devi and others, 2017 (15) SCC 230 . (ii) Rai Chand Jain v. Miss Chandrakanta Khosla, 1991 (1) SCC 422 . (iii) Ram Das v. Ishwar Chand and others, 1988 (3) SCC 131 . (iv) Vinod Kumar Arora v. Surjeet Kaur, 1987 (3) SCC 711 ". 17. Refuting the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that The trial Court while rejecting the expert report of the applicant has given elaborate reasons which are supported by the record. (iii) Ram Das v. Ishwar Chand and others, 1988 (3) SCC 131 . (iv) Vinod Kumar Arora v. Surjeet Kaur, 1987 (3) SCC 711 ". 17. Refuting the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that The trial Court while rejecting the expert report of the applicant has given elaborate reasons which are supported by the record. It thereafter proceeded to examine the genuineness of the signature and thumb impression of the applicant on paper No. 21 C/1, paper No. 21C/2 and paper No. 21C/3 and recorded a finding that the same bears signature and thumb impression of the applicant. Thus, he submits that the finding of the Trial Court being the finding of fact does not call for interference by this Court in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction. 18. He further submits that the applicant cannot impel the respondent to file evidence. If the applicant wanted the receipt book containing counterfoils of rent receipt paper No. 21 C/1 to paper No. 21 C/3 to be placed on record, he should have filed an application before the Court below in this regard. If the Trial Court on submission of such an application was satisfied that the production of receipt book is necessary to do justice, it would have passed necessary orders directing the respondent to produce the relevant receipt book, and if the order of the Court was not complied with by the respondent, then only the adverse inference could be drawn against the respondent. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another, 2012 (8) SCC 148 . He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Trilok Singh Chauhan v. Ram Lal (dead) through legal representatives and others, 2018 (2) SCC 566 , on the point that if the finding is not perverse and based on the appreciation of evidence on record, the Court should refrain from interfering with such findings in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction being the finding of fact. 19. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 20. It is not in dispute that the applicant is the tenant of the shop and there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and applicant. 19. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 20. It is not in dispute that the applicant is the tenant of the shop and there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and applicant. The respondent alleges that once he sent a notice dated 29.5.2012 terminating the tenancy on the ground of a material alteration in the shop, the applicant approached him with a request not to take any legal action and offered rent of the shop at Rs. 5,000/- per month plus 31% tax, i.e. Rs. 6550/- per month. The respondent produced three original rent receipt dated 15.6.2012 (paper No. 21C/1), rent receipt dated 22.6.2012 (paper No. 21 C/2) and rent receipt dated 23.10.2012 (paper No. 21C/3) to prove the rent of the shop agreed between the parties, which, according to him, was duly acknowledged by the applicant by putting his signature and thumb impression on the said receipts. 21. The applicant had denied any compromise between him and the respondent in which rent of the shop was enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- plus 31% taxes per month. He also denied the signature and thumb impression on the said receipt. He alleges that three receipts i.e. three original rent receipt dated 15.6.2012 (paper No. 21C/1), rent receipt dated 22.6.2012 (paper No. 21C/2) and rent receipt dated 23.10.2012 (paper No. 21C/3) are forged and fabricated receipts. 22. The controversy in the present case centres around the aforesaid three receipts since if the signature and thumb impression on the aforesaid three receipts are proved to be of the applicant, it is proved that the respondent has agreed to pay rent of the shop @ Rs. 5,000/- plus 31% tax. The respondent filed a report of the handwriting expert and produced Expert Rajkumar Shrotriya to prove that the receipts bear signature and thumb impression of the applicant. The applicant also filed a report of the handwriting expert and produced Expert Satish Chandra Varshney to prove that the signature and thumb impression on aforesaid three receipts are not of the applicant and are forged. 23. The Trial Court while adverting to the issue No. 1 has considered various rent receipts filed by the applicant which demonstrated that the rent of the shop was Rs. 1200/- plus taxes. 23. The Trial Court while adverting to the issue No. 1 has considered various rent receipts filed by the applicant which demonstrated that the rent of the shop was Rs. 1200/- plus taxes. The trial Court found that the rent receipt produced on record establishes payment of rent of the shop till 31.3.2011 as no rent receipt for the period after 31.3.2011 showing payment of rent was filed by the applicant. Consequently, it held that the applicant has paid the rent till 31.3.2011. 24. The Trial Court, thereafter, proceeded to consider the expert report submitted by the applicant and the respondent. On close appraisal of the expert report and the statement of the ex-pert of the respondent, the trial Court found the report of the expert of the respondent is correct and the signature and thumb impression on the three rent receipts was of the applicant. The Trial Court thereupon considered the expert report of the applicant and found that according to the expert report paper No. 102Ga, Q-2 to Q-6 (Thumb impression of the applicant on Paper No. 21C/1 to 21C/3) and T-1 (Standard Thumb impression of the applicant) have the same characteristic, even then he has stated in his report that there are dissimilarities in Q-2 to Q-6 and T-l. 25. At this point, it would be pertinent to reproduce that portion of the report of the expert Satish Chandra Varshney where he has dealt with the thumb impression: ".....As regards the Thumb-impressions: (a) Standard thumb-impressions mark T1 to T4 show on a preliminary examination that: -In impression mark T1 only some of the ridges are visible in lower portion on the basis of these ridges the pattern of the impression may be judged that is of loop type. In this pattern the ridges are entering and flowing out after re-curving in the middle in the left side and makes the delta point on the right side. In impression mark T2 no one ridge or ridge characteristics is distinctly visible, so it is blurred and not comparable. The impression mark T3-T4 are of Arch type. In this pattern the ridges are flowing from one side to other side without taking any turn in middle. (b) Disputed thumb impression mark Q1 to Q6 in these impression: -In impression mark Q1 no one ridge or ridge characteristics is distinctly visible, so it is blurred and not comparable. The impression mark T3-T4 are of Arch type. In this pattern the ridges are flowing from one side to other side without taking any turn in middle. (b) Disputed thumb impression mark Q1 to Q6 in these impression: -In impression mark Q1 no one ridge or ridge characteristics is distinctly visible, so it is blurred and not comparable. -In impression mark Q2 to Q6 the flow of ridges is clear on the basis of these ridges the pattern of the impressions may be judged that is of loop type. In this pattern the ridges are entering and flowing out after re-curving in the middle in the left side and makes the delta point on the right side. Further examination of these impressions Q2 to Q6 show that in Q3 the ridges are very much faint no one ridge characteristics is distinctly visible so it is not comparable. (c) So I made a detailed analysis of ridge characteristics in disputed thumb-impressions Q2-Q4-Q5-Q6 and in standard impression T1 which is the main basis of comparison that shows basic dissimilarities in Q2-Q4-Q5-Q6 and in T1." 26. From the aforesaid underlined portion of paragraph 'a' and 'b' of the expert report extracted above, it is evident that the report of the Expert clearly suggest that Q2-Q4-Q5-Q6 and T1 have the same characteristic and yet in paragraph C in the conclusion part, the Expert records that there is dissimilarity in Q2-Q4-Q5-Q6 and T1. The aforesaid conclusion which on the face of record appears to be not correct led the Trial Court believe that the report of the Expert of the applicant is not credible. 27. The Trial Court thereafter proceeded under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to verify the genuineness of signature and thumb impression on the receipts and other documents on record namely receipt No. 34C/29, 34C/31, 34C/32 submitted by the applicant, signature of the applicant on Vakalatnama paper No. 13-C and written statement. On examination of the admitted signature of the applicant, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the applicant is in the habit of making two kinds of signature 'in one kind he draws only one headline on all the three words of his signature and in other kind, he makes three different headlines one on every word of signature'. On examination of the admitted signature of the applicant, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the applicant is in the habit of making two kinds of signature 'in one kind he draws only one headline on all the three words of his signature and in other kind, he makes three different headlines one on every word of signature'. By recording the aforesaid finding, the Trial Court was of the view that the expert report submitted by Expert Satish Chandra Varshney is not correct and is not worthy of reliance. The Trial Court also noticed the fact that the applicant has deposited rent @ Rs. 5,000/- per month and taxes in the Court during the pendency of the case which also amounts to an admission by the applicant with respect to the rate of rent. 28. This Court in the case of Union of India and others (supra) has held that the expert report is only an opinion of an expert and such opinion cannot be treated to be a conclusive piece of evidence. It can also be inferred from the number of judgments of the Apex Court relied upon in the said judgment that an expert witness howsoever impartial he may wish to be, is likely to be unconsciously prejudiced in favour of the side which calls him. At this point, it would also be pertinent to notice the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Murari Lal, 1980 (1) SCC 704 (referred in paragraph 88 of the judgment of Union of India) wherein it has been held that the Courts are empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. Paragraph 12 of the judgment of Murari Lal is reproduced hereunder: "The argument that the Court should not venture to compare writings itself, as it would thereby assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without force. Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. If it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid it is one of the hazards to which judge and litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary. There may be cases where both sides call experts and the voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the Court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the Court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the Court. Where there is none, the Court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the Courts own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence. We may mention that Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar and Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh were cases where the Court itself compared the writings." 29. Thus, from the judgment of the Apex Court in Murari Lal (Supra) it is crystal clear that the Court can in the interest of justice compare handwritings as it is empowered to do so under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. 30. In the case in hand, the relevant extract of the report of expert Satish Chandra Varshney reproduced above was relied upon by the Trial Court to doubt the correctness of the expert report. Further, The trial Court by invoking power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act compared the signature of the applicant on the three rent receipts paper No. 21C/1, paper No. 21C/2, and paper No. 21C/3 with the signature of the applicant on receipt No. 34C/29, 34C/31, 34C/32, Vakalatnama and written statement of the applicant, and on verification, it found that the signature on three rent receipts matched with the signature of the applicant on the documents referred above filed by the applicant. Thus, it is evident that the trial Court after evaluating the expert report and other evidence on record has given proper and credible reason to conclude that the report of expert Satish Chandra Varshney is not credible. Thus, the submission of counsel for the applicant that no reason has been given by the Trial Court in disbelieving the report of expert Satish Chandra Varshney is misconceived and not supported by the record. 31. Now coming to the submission of counsel for the applicant that the receipt book containing counterfoils of receipt paper No. 21C/1 to 21C/3 was not filed nor the aforesaid receipts bear a serial number. Therefore, it is a case where adverse inference should be drawn against the respondent that these receipts are manipulated and forged as the respondent had failed to produce the receipt book. 32. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another, 2012 (8) SCC 148 , has held that merely withholding of documentary evidence by a party is not enough to draw an adverse inference against him. Paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 24 of the judgment is extracted here in below: "16. In Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das v. Surajnarayan Das and another, AIR 1967 SC 256 , this Court held that mere withholding of documentary evidence by a party is not enough to draw adverse inference against him. The other party must ask the party in possession of such evidence to produce the same, and in case the party in possession does not produce it, adverse inference may be drawn: "It is true that the defendant-respondent also did not call upon the plaintiff-appellant to produce the documents whose existence was admitted by one or the other witness of the plaintiff and that therefore, strictly speaking, no inference adverse to the plaintiff can be drawn from his non-producing the list of documents. The Court may not be in a position to conclude from such omission that those documents would have directly established the case for the respondent. But it can take into consideration in weighing the evidence or any direct inferences from established facts that the documents might have favoured the respondent case." 17. In Ramrati Kuer v. Dwarika Prasad Singh and others, AIR 1967 SC 1134 , this Court held: "It is true that Dwarika Prasad Singh said that his father used to keep accounts. But it can take into consideration in weighing the evidence or any direct inferences from established facts that the documents might have favoured the respondent case." 17. In Ramrati Kuer v. Dwarika Prasad Singh and others, AIR 1967 SC 1134 , this Court held: "It is true that Dwarika Prasad Singh said that his father used to keep accounts. But no attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to ask the Court to order Dwarika Prasad Singh to produce the accounts. An adverse inference could only have been drawn against the plaintiffs-respondents if the appellant had asked the Court to order them to produce accounts and they had failed to produce them after admitting that Basekhi Singh used to keep accounts. But no such prayer was made to the Court, and in the circumstances no adverse inference could be drawn from the non-production of accounts." (See also: Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and others, AIR 2012 SC 1339 ). 24. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that, issue of drawing adverse inference is required to be decided by the Court taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and by deciding whether any document/evidence, withheld, has any relevance at all or omission of its production would directly establish the case of the other side. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that burden of proof is on the party which makes a factual averment. The Court has to consider further as to whether the other side could file interrogatories or apply for inspection and production of the documents etc. as is required under Order XICPC. Conduct and diligence of the other party is also of paramount importance. Presumption or adverse inference for non-production of evidence is always optional and a relevant factor to be considered in the background of facts involved in the case. Existence of some other circumstances may justify non-production of such documents on some reasonable grounds. In case one party has asked the Court to direct the other side to produce the document and other side failed to comply with the Court's order, the Court may he justified in drawing the adverse inference. All the pros and cons must be examined before the adverse inference is drawn. Such presumption is permissible, if other larger evidence is shown to the contrary." 33. All the pros and cons must be examined before the adverse inference is drawn. Such presumption is permissible, if other larger evidence is shown to the contrary." 33. Counsel for the applicant could not demonstrate from the record that the applicant had filed an application demanding production of the receipt book. The applicant needed to file an application praying for a direction to the respondent to produce receipt book asserting that the production of the receipt book was necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute so that the Court could have examined whether the production of receipt book was essential for right decision of the case and give the necessary direction for production of the receipt book. Therefore, it is not a case where the trial Court could draw an adverse inference. Thus, the submission of counsel for the applicant that an adverse inference should have been drawn against the respondent for not producing the receipt book is devoid of substance. 34. Counsel for the applicant has lastly argued that it is astonishing that the original of the aforesaid three rent receipts i.e. paper No. 21C/1 to 21C/3 had been produced by the respondent whereas the original of the three rent receipts could have been produced only by the applicant to whom the said receipts are alleged to have been issued. Accordingly, he submits that the aforesaid fact demonstrates that the aforesaid receipts are forged and fabricated. 35. To the said submission, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as the aforesaid contention has been advanced for the first time before this Court, therefore, the respondent has explained in paragraph No. 14 of the counter-affidavit as to how these receipts have been filed. Paragraph No. 14 of the counter-affidavit is extracted herein below: "14. That the contents of para 14 of the 'said affidavit' as stated are wrong and denied. It is stated that the plaintiff/opposite party filed counter foils of rent receipts duly signed and thumb marked by the defendant/revisionist. The rate of rent beside tax payable in relation to the shop in question @ Rs. 5,000/- per month plus Rs. 1550/- per month will be apparent from the counter foils. It is stated that the plaintiff/opposite party filed counter foils of rent receipts duly signed and thumb marked by the defendant/revisionist. The rate of rent beside tax payable in relation to the shop in question @ Rs. 5,000/- per month plus Rs. 1550/- per month will be apparent from the counter foils. The plaintiff/opposite party stated that torn out part of the rent receipt is placed below the counter foil of the rent receipt and by inserting carbon paper in between the requisite details about payment of rent is mentioned therein and after removal of carbon paper, parties appended their signatures on the receipts i.e. counter foils in original as well as rent receipts carbon copy signed by them. It is stated that tenants used to pay the rent not only appended his signature but also his thumb impression on front and back side of the counter foils of the rent receipt. Thereafter carbon copy of rent receipt is handed over to the tenant concern. The counter foil remain with the plaintiff/opposite party, which were filed by him before the Court below. From bare perusal of counter foils of rent receipts there is perforation on the right side of it which establishes that the same were counter foils of rent receipts retain by plaintiff/opposite party. In absence of cogent and valid reason to infer doubt about counter foils of those rent receipts remain in the custody of the plaintiff/landlord. Allegations to the contrary made in para under reply are without any basis. The plaintiff/opposite party has rightly filed those counter foils of the rent receipt which contain signatures and thumb impression of the defendant/revisionist. The defendant/revisionist with oblique motive and mala fide reason has denied his liability to pay rent @ Rs. 5,000/- per month besides Rs. 1550/- P.M. towards taxes and his signatures and thumb impression on the counter foils of the rent receipts besides those counter foils are forged and fabricated. The facts contrary to this asserted by the defendant/revisionist in paragraph under reply are wrong and denied. That the Rent Receipts filed by the Defendant/Revisionist in Lower Court are issued and acknowledge in same manner and style. The perforation are on left hand side by bare perusal, it can be confirmed." 36. The facts contrary to this asserted by the defendant/revisionist in paragraph under reply are wrong and denied. That the Rent Receipts filed by the Defendant/Revisionist in Lower Court are issued and acknowledge in same manner and style. The perforation are on left hand side by bare perusal, it can be confirmed." 36. Because of the reasons detailed in paragraph No. 14 of the counter-affidavit, the Court finds that the respondent has given a plausible explanation as to how the three rent receipts which are in fact counterfoils have been filed in original. Further, the record shows that the applicant has not raised aforesaid argument before the trial Court and has raised it for the first time in revision, which cannot be permitted to be raised in the revision. Accordingly, this Court finds no substance in the argument of counsel for the applicant that the filing of the original receipt itself demonstrates that they are forged. 37. For the reasons given above, this Court finds that the finding recorded by the Trial Court is a finding of fact based upon proper appreciation of evidence and material on record and interference with the aforesaid finding is not warranted by this Court in the exercise of power under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Trilok Singh Chauhan (supra). 38. Since the judgment of the trial Court is not perverse or based on a misreading of the evidence or against the record, therefore, the judgments of the Apex Court in cases, namely Ram Murti Devi (Supra), Rai Chandra Jain (Supra), Ram Das (Supra) and Vinod Kumar Arora (Supra) relied upon by the applicants on the point that the Court can interfere with the judgment of the trial Court on facts where judgment is based on a misreading of evidence are not applicable. 39. Consequently, the revision lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. There is no order as to the cost. 40. The office is directed to return the record of the Court below forthwith without any delay.