Delhi District Court
Shri Maharaj Kumar vs Ms. Raj Kumari @ Raj Arora on 5 February, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.C.GARG, ADDL. RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL,
DELHI
MCA No. 11/07
In the matter of:
Shri Maharaj Kumar
S/o Shri Late Shri M.B. Singh,
R/o A-1/272, Lawrance Road, Delhi ....Appellant
Versus
Ms. Raj Kumari @ Raj Arora
D/o Late Shri Vishwanand
R/o H.No. 130, Parmanand Colony,
Delhi -110007 ....Respondent
ORDER
1. In this appeal the appellant is aggrieved from an order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller whereby, the Addl. Rent Controller has allowed the application moved by the respondent u/o 7 rule 14(3) r/w section 151 of CPC for placing on record two documents dated 02.6.2003 regarding transfer of possession of the property bearing no. CU 109, Ground Floor, Pitam Pura, New Delhi in favour of Shri Sumit Handa and receipt of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid by Shri Sumit Handa to the respondent with a view to show that the property which belong to the respondent has been transferred to Shri Sumit Handa. By these documents he wanted to show that, now the aforesaid property is not in possession of the respondent.
2. The appellants submits, that this application was filed by the respondent at the 1 time when the case was fixed for final arguments. It is submitted, that the documents perse establish that the property bearing no. CU-109 Pitam Pura, New Delhi belongs to the respondent. The documents which were sought to be placed if are taken into consideration, it will weaken the case of the appellant that the suit filed by the respondent for bonanfide requirement was malafide. As such, it is contended that the documents should not be allowed to be placed on record because even otherwise, the documents are of no consequence because a transfer of immovable property cannot take place in the manner as was sought to be proved. Admittedly, the sale deed of the aforesaid property was executed in favour of Shri Sumit Handa only on 22.4.2004 i.e subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition which goes to show that these are the procured documents and having no genuineness . Hence, it is stated that order passed by the trial court needs interference in this appeal because, the purpose of placing the document is not benefit but is only an attempt to support their case about the bonafide requirement without brining this fact on record earlier.
3. On the other hand, strength in submissions made by the appellant is that by placing the two documents on record the respondent is trying to defeat the case of the appellant as pleaded in their defence and to avoid consideration of property bearing No. CU-109 Pitam Pura, New Delhi as a property available with him when he instituted the suit for bonafide requirement. The manner in which the documents i.e the letter of transfer of possession and receipt have been created also cast doubt of their authenticity and such documents can always be prepared to defeat the case of 2 other party. Merely because, AW3 or AW1 admits about the transfer of possession it makes no difference.
4. Once, the case was listed for hearing arguments, it was improper for the trial court to have granted indulgence to the respondent to place on record the documents dated 02.6.2003 in as much as, the order tantamounts to the respondent to lead additional evidence is without any rime reason. This is also an attempt to further strengthen the case of the respondent. There is also no explanation as to why these documents were not placed in case they came in existence on 02.6.2003 and why they were sought to be produced on record only at a stage when the case was listed for final arguments.
5. It will also be interesting to note that in the cross-examination of the petitioner/applicant recorded on 23.2.2005 it was stated that the agreement dated 02.6.2006 was destroyed at the time of execution of sale deed on 22.4.2004. It is, therefore, apparent that the two documents were prepared later on. Even otherwise, if there is an evidence already led on record as has been referred to by the trial court in the impugned order by referring to the statement of AW3 where was the necessity for the respondent to bring the documents like one have been allowed to place on record which can always be prepared/fabricated by the parties. Thus, even otherwise there was no need to have been allowed the application in question. Thus, the order passed by the trial court is set aside. The appeal is allowed but with no orders as to cost. 3 Parties are directed to appear in the trial court on 17.4.2007 i.e the date already fixed. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court along with Trial court record. Appeal file be consigned to the record room.
(M.C.GARG) ADDL. RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL,D ELHI Dated: 05.2.2007 4