JUDGMENT
Vinod K. Sharma, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.4.2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hissar, vide which application for additional evidence moved by the tenant-petitioner herein was declined.
2. It was pleaded in the application that the petitioner i.e. landlord, his brother Gaurav and their father Shri Raj Kuamr, were living jointly in Katla Ram Lika, Hisar. It was averred that he received some information from Parveen Sharma on 25.1.2006 in which it was revealed that the landlord-petitioner and his brother Gaurav had filed an eviction petition against his father Sehdev in respect of ground floor of a Shop No. B-XV/21301 situated at Parijat Chowk, Hisar. It was alleged in the application that one shop of property No. 197/198/IV, situated inside Nagori Gate, Hisar, was sold by the father of the petitioner-landlord and near the said shop there were two shops of the father of the petitioner-landlord and one room and one shop near the shop in question were got vacated by the petitioner-landlord during the pendency of the present petition.
3. It was further the case of the tenant-petitioner that after great efforts he got a copy of sale deed No. 5293 dated 25.1.1999, certified copy of the cases Gaurav etc. v. Sehdev, decided on 5.12.2005, copy of order dated 28.9.2004 passed in the case titled Vishal Gupta v. Prem Kumar. It was also alleged that a copy of order passed in case Vishal Gupta v. Prem Kumar and a copy of order in the case Vishal Gupta v. Om Parkash have not been delivered to him so far. It was also the case of the tenant-applicant that he was not aware of the said documents prior to 25.1.2006 and as such could not produce the same in his evidence. The said documents were claimed to be necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case. It was claimed that though the sale-deed was executed by the father of the petitioner-landlord, however, the copies of the orders were inter se between the petitioner-landlord and his tenants and cannot be said to be fabricated documents. With these submissions, the applicant-tenant prayed for permission to lead additional evidence by production of these documents.
4. The said application was contested by the landlord-respondent herein. It was claimed that no sufficient cause was shown as to why these documents were not produced earlier and further that nobody was entitled to produce the additional evidence as a matter of right. The stand of the respondent-landlord was that these documents were not necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case.
5. The learned Counsel for the applicant-tenant contended that prior to 25.1.2006 the applicant was not aware of the said documents and therefore, could not produce the same in his evidence. It was further argued that said documents were very much necessary for just and proper decision of the case. The claim of the applicant-petitioner was that as these documents cannot be fabricated one therefore, in view of the law laid down in the cases of Adil Jamshed Frenchman by LRs. v. Sardar Dastan School Trust (2005-3) 141 P.L.R. 356 (S.C.); Basant Raj v. Kaushal Kishore (2005-3)141 P.L.R. 76, Atma S. Berar v. Maukhtiar Singh (2003-1) 133 P.L.R. 371 (S.C.); Raj Kumar Gamir v. Kanwar Sain Jain (2003-2) 134 P.L.R. 356 and Shri Kishan Dass v. Ujagar Singh 2003 H.R.R. 338, this application deserved to be allowed.
6. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord herein was that these documents were in the knowledge of the applicant and the same were not produced at the time when his evidence was being recorded. It was further argued that these documents were not necessary for just and proper decision of the case. In support of his contention, reliance was placed in the cases of Krishan Kumar v. Manish (2002-2) 131 P.L.R. 563; Amrik Singh v. Jodh Singh (1998-3) 120 P.L.R. 417; Smt. Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate v. Rai Chand Dhanraj Lunja 1999 (1) R.C.R. 74; Manik Haider v. Plamraju Lavanya 2005(1) R.C.R. 407 and Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah and Sons v. Pushpa Trading Co. 1998(2) R.C.R. 597.
7. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that in order to produce additional evidence, it has to be shown that the said evidence has bearing on the points involved in the eviction petition and must be relevant for proper adjudication of the matter in controversy.
8. The learned Rent Controller further held that it has to be proved that the said evidence could not be produced despite the diligence. Therefore, in view of this, learned Rent Controller held that the copy of the sale-deed was quite old and the applicant-tenant failed to show as to why the execution of the said sale-deed was not within his knowledge. It was further held that the compromise dated 5.12.2005 was not relevant for deciding the matter in controversy. It was also held by the Trial Court that the copy of the order dated 28.9.2004 had already been produced on 4.5.2005.
9. The learned trial Court formed a view that the present application was filed merely to delay the proceedings and further the said documents were not necessary for proper adjudication of the case between the parties.
10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.
11. It is not in dispute that the eviction petition has been filed on the grounds of non-payment of rent, personal necessity and that the buildings in question was in dilapidated condition. The documents sought to be produced are the very relevant factors for deciding ejectment petition on the ground of personal necessity. This important aspect appears to have been ignored by the Rent Controller while deciding the application for additional evidence. In order to controvert the pleadings of the landlord, the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, were very much necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case.
12. The learned trial Court has also failed to take note of the fact that the applicant-petitioner had categorically pleaded that he came to know about these documents only on 25.1.2006. This statement cannot be doubted as the said documents were in the knowledge of the respondent-landlord and the petitioner was not a party to the same therefore, could not have knowledge of documents. The Rent Controller, therefore, was not correct in arriving at the conclusion that the documents being old were supposed to be in the knowledge of the applicant-petitioner. The learned Rent Controller was also not right to hold that these documents were not necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case.
In view of the observations made above, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted permission to lead additional evidence by way of production of documents. However, this will be subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as costs.