Order : (NUPUR BHATI, J.) (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15591/2022) 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu by which the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 read with Section 151 of CPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit against the defendant-petitioner for eviction from the suit shop and recovery of rent and damages. It was inter alia stated in the plaint that the petitioner took the suit shop on rent on monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. The defendant-petitioner initially paid rent up to 31.12.2013 and remaining rent has not been paid despite demand. The respondent, then, served a 15 days' notice dated 24.04.2015 for termination of the tenancy. The said notice was served but despite this petitioner-defendant has not vacated the suit shop nor handed over possession of the same to the plaintiff-respondent. 3. The petitioner-defendant submitted a written statement to the plaint and denied the averments as made in the plaint. The petitioner-defendants stated that no shop of the plaintiff-respondent is on rent with him. He also denied that he paid rent upto 31.12.2013 and when the plaintiff-respondent is not owner of the premises then he is not tenant of plaintiff-respondent and plaintiff has no right to terminate the tenancy. The petitioner- defendant also denied receiving any notice dated 24.04.2015. It was further stated that respondent-plaintiff has a shop in Bidasar town since the time of his father which was taken on rent of Rs. 111/- per month in the year 1975. During the life time of Lunga Ram rent @ 111/- per month was being paid to him. The shop which was taken on rent by him on rent from Lunga Ram is in his use and occupation. Plaintiff-respondent is not landlord of defendant-petitioner and defendant-petitioner is not tenant of the plaintiff. Therefore, vacant possession of the shop in question cannot be handed over to plaintiff. The defendant-petitioner also denied outstanding rent of Rs. 16,000/- or any other amount or the entitlement to recover any amount from him. Plaintiff-respondent is not landlord of defendant-petitioner and defendant-petitioner is not tenant of the plaintiff. Therefore, vacant possession of the shop in question cannot be handed over to plaintiff. The defendant-petitioner also denied outstanding rent of Rs. 16,000/- or any other amount or the entitlement to recover any amount from him. The defendant petitioner prayed that since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant, the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this count. It was also prayed that suit property being not belonging to plaintiff-respondent he has no right to file the present suit. 4. The learned trial court has taken on record sale deed dated 31.05.1995 and gift deed dated 22.11.2013 after that petitioner- defendant moved an application under order 11 Rule 12 and 14 r/ w section 151 CPC and prayed that the sale deed dated 31.05.1995 executed between Basant Shekhani and his power of attorney holder Kamal Devi and Smt. Anshu has sold the property to Saroj Devi and prior to execution of sale deed dated 31-05- 1995 the said land was purchased by Late Bhanwari Devi by registered sale deed dated 22.04.1963. The petitioner filed an application under Order 11, Rule 14 & 15 read with Section 151 CPC while indicating that the learned court on the application of the plaintiff-respondent has taken on record the sale deed dated 31.05.1995, but the plaintiff-respondent has deliberately withheld the sale deed dated 22.04.1963 and the death certificate of Bhanwari Devi and plaintiff/respondent has also not produced the certificate of legal heirs of said Bhanwari Devi. The petitioner- defendant requested to the learned trial court that sale deed dated 22.04.1963 and death certificate or certificate of legal heirs of Bhanwari Devi are the relevant and important documents. The defendant petitioner filed above mentioned application but respondent/plaintiff did not submit reply. 5. The learned trial Court after considering the facts of the case as well as law applicable to the case, passed the order dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure-4) and the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 r/w section 151 ??? has been dismissed. Being aggrieved of the same, the instant writ petition has been filed. 6. 5. The learned trial Court after considering the facts of the case as well as law applicable to the case, passed the order dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure-4) and the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 r/w section 151 ??? has been dismissed. Being aggrieved of the same, the instant writ petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court while rejecting the application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 of CPC read with Section 151 CPC has ignored the fact that in order to decide ownership of the premise in question the documents as mentioned in the application, are necessary to be taken on record. He further submits that though the respondent-plaintiff in his plaint has stated himself to be the owner of the suit premise however, the petitioner by way of filing the written statement had denied the ownership of the respondent-plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in order to determine the ownership, the sale deed dated 20.04.1963 as well as death certificate or the certificate of legal heirs of Bhanwari Devi are required to be produced by the respondent-plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the suit has been filed under the The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 under which the relationship of landlord and tenant has to be examined and the issue of ownership/title of the premise cannot be decided and thus the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure-4) has observed that the petitioner- defendant has preferred an application under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC on 10.05.2019 for the purpose of taking the sale deed dated 31.05.1995 as well as the gift deed dated 22.11.2023 on record. The learned trial Court after examining the sale deed found that the same was executed by Basant Sekhani and Smt. Anu wife of Narendra Surana daughter of late Shri Dhanraj Sekhani in favour of Smt. Saroj Devi wife of Bachhraj resident of Bidasar. The learned trial Court after examining the sale deed found that the same was executed by Basant Sekhani and Smt. Anu wife of Narendra Surana daughter of late Shri Dhanraj Sekhani in favour of Smt. Saroj Devi wife of Bachhraj resident of Bidasar. It has also been observed by the learned trial Court that the said sale deed shows that the land in question was purchased earlier by Bhanwari Devi Sekhani through sale deed dated 22.04.1963. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and examining the relevant documents available on record has observed that the case is pending since 2015 and on 10.05.2019, the plaintiff witness was present and thereafter the application has been preferred by the petitioner defendant. It has also been observed by the learned trial Court that the defendant though has questioned the ownership of the respondent-plaintiff however, there is no averments made that he himself is the owner of the suit premise. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the case does not pertains to a suit for declaration of rights and the issue of ownership cannot be decided by the trial Court. 10. The learned trial Court has also held that as the sale deed dated 31.05.1995 as well as the gift deed dated 22.11.2013 being registered documents have already been presented by the respondent-plaintiff, thus, the documents indicated by the petitioner-defendant in his application are not required to be summoned. 11. This Court concurs with the findings of the learned trial Court while observing that the issue of ownership cannot be decided in an eviction suit and the learned trial Court after examining the documents in question did not find them to be relevant for adjudication of the suit while observing that the sale deed dated 31.05.1995 and gift deed dated 22.11.2013 being registered documents would be sufficient to decide the dispute between the parties. Therefore, no interference is required in the order dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu. The writ petition being bereft of merits is hereby dismissed. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14054/2022, 14952/2022 & 15999/2022) 1. The instant writ petitions have been filed with the following prayers:- In SBCWP No. 14054/2022 (i) The order dated 19.04.2022 (Anx.5) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu may be quashed and set aside. The writ petition being bereft of merits is hereby dismissed. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14054/2022, 14952/2022 & 15999/2022) 1. The instant writ petitions have been filed with the following prayers:- In SBCWP No. 14054/2022 (i) The order dated 19.04.2022 (Anx.5) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu may be quashed and set aside. (ii) The application filed by the plaintiff respondent under O.7 r.14(3) CPC may kindly be rejected. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted and (iv) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner. In SBCWP No.14952/2022 (i) The order dated 19.04.2022 (Anx.5) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu may be quashed and set aside. (ii) The application filed by the plaintiff respondent under O.7 r.14(3) CPC may kindly be rejected. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted and (iv) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner. In SBCWP No. 15999/2022 (i) The order dated 19.04.2022 (Anx.5) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu may be quashed and set aside. (ii) The application filed by the plaintiff respondent under O.7 r.14(3) CPC may kindly be rejected. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner, may kindly be granted and (iv) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner. 2. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions giving challenge to the order dated 19.04.2022 (Annex.5) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu which is verbatim in all three cases whereby the respective applications filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 14(3) of CPC have been allowed, therefore, these writ petitions are being decided by this common order and facts of writ petition No.14054/2022 are being taken illustratively for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit against the defendant petitioner for eviction from the suit shops and recovery of rent and damages. It was inter alia stated in the plaint that the petitioner-defendant took the suit shop on rent and paid the rent upto 31.12.2013 and remaining rent was not paid despite demand. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit against the defendant petitioner for eviction from the suit shops and recovery of rent and damages. It was inter alia stated in the plaint that the petitioner-defendant took the suit shop on rent and paid the rent upto 31.12.2013 and remaining rent was not paid despite demand. Therefore, a 15 days' notice dated 24.04.2015 was served to terminate the tenancy. The said notice was served but despite this suit shops were neither vacated nor handed over the possession of the same to the plaintiff-respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant submitted written statements to the plaint and denied the averments made in the plaint. Subsequently, the plaintiff-respondent submitted application before the learned trial Court under Order 7 rule 14 (3) CPC, stating that the petitioner-defendant in his written statement has denied that the plaintiff is owner/landlord of the suit shop, therefore, he wants to produce certified copies of sale-deed dated 31.05.1995 in respect of ownership of the shop/landlord and gift-deed dated 22.01.2013, the originals of which has been produced in suit no. 11/2016 in the same court. Thereafter, the defendant-petitioner submitted a reply to the said application stating that on the gift-deed wrong date has been mentioned and denied that the respondent-plaintiff is owner of the suit shop, therefore, the said documents are not relevant, hence, the documents sought to be produced on record do not fall within the definition of certified copies and the application also is not supported by affidavit and verification. The learned trial Court vide order dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure-5) allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 CPC. Aggrieved by the same, these writ petitions have been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has erred in allowing the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 CPC as there is a delay of more than three years in filing the said application from the date of filing of the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner-defendant in his written statement filed on 16.12.2015 had denied the ownership of the respondent-plaintiff however, after a delay of three years the respondent-plaintiff preferred the application for producing on record the certified copies of the documents. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioner-defendant in his written statement filed on 16.12.2015 had denied the ownership of the respondent-plaintiff however, after a delay of three years the respondent-plaintiff preferred the application for producing on record the certified copies of the documents. He further submits that the learned trial Court could not have allowed the application filed by respondent-plaintiff for taking the certified copies of the document on record as the same are not admissible in evidence and only the original could have been permitted to be taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents in question do not fall under the definition of certified copies. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as the original copy was filed in Case No.11/2016 titled as Rajendra Vs Ratan Lal therefore, he sought permission to file the certified copies of the said documents. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioners have denied the ownership of the respondent-plaintiff in the suit in their written statement therefore, the documents were necessary to be produced on record. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The learned trial Court while referring to Section 74(1)(iii) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 observed that as the certified copies had been obtained from original documents presented in other case before the learned trial Court, the same would fall under the category of public documents and thus the certified copy of the public document being admissible in evidence can be taken on record. Further on the ground of delay being averred by the petitioner, the learned trial Court observed that the said documents were produced by the respondent-plaintiff on the first date fixed for evidence whereas, the defendants have taken more than 30 months to submit the reply to the said application. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC in order to adjudicate the question of relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC in order to adjudicate the question of relationship of landlord and tenant. Further, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the question of delay raised by the petitioners-defendants while observing that the respondent-plaintiff had produced the documents on the first date fixed for evidence and further it has rightly been held that the documents in question being certified copies obtained from the original documents presented in other case file before the learned trial Court, would fall under the category of public documents as per Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 8. In view of the discussion made above, no interference is required in the order dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu. The writ petitions being bereft of merits are hereby dismissed. Stay application and pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.