Delhi District Court
Munni Lal Moti Lal vs Madhu Jain on 22 January, 2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQs)
RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR NO. DLCT010079752018
RCT Appeal 74/2018
Munni Lal Moti Lal
Through Nitin Jain
S/o Late Sh. Satya Pal Jain
R/o 1073/12, Gali Langde Wali
Maliwara, Chandni Chowk
Delhi. .....Appellant
Versus
1. Madhu Jain
2. Vivek Jain
Both R/o BP68, Shalimar Bagh (West)
Delhi. .....Respondents
Date of filing of Appeal : 08.06.2018
Date of reserving Order : 09.01.2019
Date of Order : 22.01.2019
ORDER ON APPEAL UNDER SECTION
38 OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
The appellant/tenant has preferred the present appeal against impugned order dated 26.05.2018 passed by Ld. ARC (Pilot RCT No. 74/18 Munni Lal Moti Lal vs. Madhu Jain & Anr. Page 1 of 5 Court) whereby an application under Order VIII Rule 1A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking leave to produce certain documents and permission to produce evidence to prove the said documents was dismissed.
2. Notice of the application was issued to the respondents. Trial Court record was summoned.
3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the both the parties and perused the record.
4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that while checking the House Tax status of the property in dispute, he laid his hands on the Property Tax Return (PTR) on 18.06.2017; as per said return, property is shown to be owned by four persons and occupancy factor is shown as '1', which means that property is self occupied. He wanted to file PTR and receipt of payment of House Tax, which are necessary to prove that property is selfoccupied and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is submitted that application of the appellant under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC should have been allowed. I have also considered the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant.
5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the landlords/ respondents has submitted that PTR is not a proof of existence of tenant in the rented premises; case was at the stage of final arguments and part arguments had already been heard and appellant had not taken any such RCT No. 74/18 Munni Lal Moti Lal vs. Madhu Jain & Anr. Page 2 of 5 defence of nonexistence of tenant in the property in question, hence, appeal has no merits and same is liable to be dismissed.
6. In this case, an eviction petition was filed by landlords Madhu Jain and Vivek Jain against Munni Lal Moti Jain under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act); leave to defend application was filed and same was allowed; thereafter written statement was filed on behalf of the tenant. In the written statement, no averment was made regarding nonexistence of any tenant in the property in question. Both the parties led their evidence and matter was fixed for final arguments; part arguments were heard on 19.01.2018 and thereafter matter was notified for remaining final arguments and it was at that stage, an application under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 CPC was filed to produce certain documents and permission to produce evidence to prove the said document.
7. In the written statement filed on behalf of tenant/appellant, it was stated that no document regarding ownership had been filed by the owner. But PTR itself shows that the petitioner is one of the coowners of the property in question. PTR sought to be produced pertains to June, 2017 but no PTRs of previous years have been filed. Moreover, filing of PTR is not a conclusive proof of the fact that there is no tenant in the property in question. Moreover, PTR was sought to be produced at the stage of final arguments and when part final arguments had already been heard. I am, therefore, of the view RCT No. 74/18 Munni Lal Moti Lal vs. Madhu Jain & Anr. Page 3 of 5 that nonproduction of PTR is not going to affect the case in hand as the cause of action is to be seen as on the date of filing of petition. Hence, application of the tenant/appellant under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 CPC was rightly dismissed.
8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments:
(1) Sarbanand Paswan vs. Mahendra Prasad Singh & Ors. AIR 1999 Pat. 108 wherein it has been held that object of Order XIII Rule 2 CPC is to secure fair trial and not to penalize for nonproduction of documents before Court in specific period. However, ratio of this judgment is not applicable to facts of the present case as there was inordinate delay in producing the document. Moreover, the document sought to be produced is not going to affect merits of the case. (2) Anil Kumar Chaurasia vs. Smt. Prabha Devi & Ors. AIR 2010 Jhar. 115. However, ratio of this judgment even goes against the appellant that document was sought to be produced at the stage of final argument and it was held that it would only linger proceedings. Hence, this judgment does not help the appellant.
9. In view of above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the present appeal. Same is accordingly dismissed. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of the order.
File be consigned to Record Room.
RCT No. 74/18 Munni Lal Moti Lal vs. Madhu Jain & Anr. Page 4 of 5 Digitally signed by TALWANT TALWANT SINGH
SINGH Date: 2019.01.25
13:26:10 +0530
Announced in the open Court (TALWANT SINGH)
Dated: 22th January, 2019 District & Sessions Judge (HQs)
Rent Control Tribual
Tis Hazari Courts : Delhi
RCT No. 74/18 Munni Lal Moti Lal vs. Madhu Jain & Anr. Page 5 of 5