Ranjit Singh vs Subash Chander

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.—This revision petition is directed u/s 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act), against the order of the Rent Controller, Kapurthala, dated 15th February, 1988, allowing the landlord to prove the copy of the licence deed/rent note by way of secondary evidence.

Briefly, the facts are that Subhas Chander landlord in ejectment proceedings u/s 13 of the Act for ejectment of Ranjit Singh respondent from the premises in dispute filed an application for allowing secondary evidence by way of producing copy of the licence deed/rent note allegedly executed by Ranjit Singh tenant in favour of the previous landlord Shri K.K. Sikand, contending that the original is not traceable. This application was resisted by the tenant on the ground that in his testimony recorded on 11th December, 1986, Shri K.K. Sikand had admitted in his cross-examination that the rent note/licence deed was in his possession but he had not brought it in the Court. It was further maintained that the rent-note has been withheld as it was unstamped and forged document. An objection was also taken regarding the admissibility of this rent-note for want of proper registration and being unstamped.

The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the statement of Shri K.K. Sikand recorded later on in rebuttal, concluded that the original had been lost and its photo-stat copy was allowed to be tendered by way of secondary evidence. Regarding the non-admissibility of this document, it was held that it can be used for collateral purposes by relying upon the findings of the Supreme Court in Jupudi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subarao and others I.R. 1961 S.C. 1070.

Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner, contended that the Rent Controller had failed to observe the requirements of section 65 of the Evidence Act, as loss of the original rent note/licence deed was not proved on the file. He further contended that the finding of the Rent Controller regarding the use of such a document for collateral purposes being vague, should also be set aside. Mr. Muneshwar Puri, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the findings of the trial Court besides maintaining that such findings of the trial Court should not be interfered lightly on the original side.

It is conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that Shri K.K. Sikand was the original landlord of the premises in dispute and that in his testimony on 26th December, 1986, he had admitted during cross-examination being in possession of the original rent note/licence deed, but in his statement recorded on 7th January, 1987 without oath he has stated that he has lost this document. No doubt a document could be lost during this interval, but all the same as the statement of Shri K.K. Sikand was not recorded on oath, it cannot be said that the loss of such document had been proved especially when Mr. Sikand had not laid down any basis about the circumstances under which it was lost. Obviously he was not cross-examined as the latter statement was recorded without oath. Under these circumstances, the impugned order of the trial Court allowing the additional evidence is not legally sustainable.

Regarding the admissibility of the licence deed/rent note for collateral purposes, it transpires that unless the document is brought on the file by way of additional evidence, the Rent Controller could not possibly determine the actual collateral purpose for which the same could be used, though otherwise being unstamped document, it cannot be used for ascertaining the terms of tenancy.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the trial Court having certainly resulted in miscarriage of justice is hereby set aside by accepting this revision petition. The trial Court shall allow the parties to lead evidence regarding the loss of original document and thereafter decide the matter of allowing secondary evidence in accordance with law. The matter of admissibility of this document being not properly stamped shall also be reconsidered by the learned Rent Controller. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The parties through/their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 25th August, 1988.