Chhaju Ram vs Harbans Lal and Others

R.S. Mongia, J.—Petitioner Chhaju Ram allegedly let out the shop in dispute to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Harbans Lal and Gian Chand. An ejectment application was filed under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejecting the aforesaid tenants inter-alia on the ground that they had sublet the shop in question to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. Biney Kumar and Ram Saran Dass and had parted with the possession thereof and sub tenants respondent Nos. 1 and 3 were in exclusive possession of the shop in question. During the course of evidence which was being led by the petitioner, he summoned partnership deed of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to show that they were the sole partners carrying on the business at the shop in dispute and also the Registration Certificate of the partnership firm of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in support of his case. The aforesaid documents were brought to the Court by an official of the Sales Tax Department, who claimed confidentiality of the documents which was accepted. The following order came to be passed by the Rent Controller on January 19, 1993:-

"One AW examined in part. He has claimed confidentiality of the documents which plea is accepted and he is discharged. For remaining evidence of the applicant on 12.2.93."

While issuing notice of motion in this case on February 10, 1993, further proceedings before the Rent Controller were stayed and the stay order was continued when the revision petition was admitted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that all documents which may be filed by an assessee are not required to be kept confidential by the Sales Tax Department u/s 26 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and it is only those documents which are required for purpose of assessment that the department may claim confidentiality. According to him, the partnership deed or the registration certificate has nothing to do with actual assessment of the sales-tax as these two documents are only filed to show the existence of a partnership and which parties constitute the partnership. The registration certificate is only to show that the particular partnership firm is a registered one. In other words, these are not the documents on the basis of which the assessment is to be made. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on a judgment of learned Single Judge in Seeta Ram v. Prithi Chand and Ors. (1987) 92 P.L.R. 388, which in turn relies on another judgment of a learned Single Judge Ram Murti v. Hans Raj 1968 C L.J. 945. In Seeta Ram''s case (supra), to prove the ground of subletting the landlord had summoned an official from the Sales Tax Department to produce a partnership deed submitted by the alleged sub-tenants for getting their partnership firm registered under the Sales Tax Act. However, the witness stated that no such deed was available in the record of the department. The landlord then put certain questions to witness about the entries made in the prescribed form ST-2 for registration of the firm. The Rent Controller did not allow to do so being of the view that such a disclosure by the Department would be barred by the provisions of Section 26 of the Act. The revision petition was allowed by observing that the landlord wanted to prove the contents of the form submitted for the registration of the firm which had nothing to do with the assessment as such. Similar was the view taken in Ram Murti''s case (supra).

Apart from what has been observed above, I cannot understand and appreciate as to why confidentiality should be kept by the Department as to who are the partners in a particular firm or whether the same is registered firm with the Sales Tax Department. As far as assessment itself is concerned or the documents directly connected with the assessment, it may be that the same are to be kept confidential as those are actually to do something with the business of the assessee. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the partnership deed and the registration certificate are part and parcel of the process of assessment and these are the documents required for assessing a partnership firm and, therefore, the department can claim privilege regarding these documents to be produced in Court in view of the provision of Section 26 of the Sales Tax Act. The documents, as aforesaid, which were summoned by the petitioner, have nothing to do as such with the actual assessment of the sales tax of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. These are at the most documents to show the factum of partnership or who are the partners constituting the partnership firm and whether the same is registered one or not. Consequently, it cannot be said that the Sales Tax Department was right in claiming privilege to produce the documents. Otherwise also, I do not find as to why such documents should be kept confidential as a person dealing with the firm, especially if it is a registered one, must know who are the partners of the firm.

Resultantly, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order, dated January 19, 1993, is set aside. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Bhatinda on September 2, 1996 for further directions. The Rent Controller is directed id expedite the disposal of the ejectment petition.