Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. It is then submitted by Mr. Thorat that reliance placed on receipts issued by the Respondent shows the premises therein 'Darwajawali Room'. However, the rent receipts are not produced and proved by the witness for Defendant. He submitted that the rent receipts are marked as exhibits because they were shown to the Plaintiff's witness in his cross-examination and they cannot be held as proved because Defendant was required to prove them independently. It is submitted that the receipts relied by Defendant are printed receipts which was being used for a chawl adjacent to the temple. It is submitted that mere use of word 'rent' is not conclusive proof of tenancy. That no independent evidence is produced to prove landlord-tenant relationship. That though the Defendant claimed tenancy, no suit is filed seeking declaration of the tenancy and same is raised merely as defence. He relied upon the judgment of Dr. H. S. Rikhy & Ors. Vs. The New Delhi Municipal Committee [AIR 1962 SC 554] in support of the contention about mere use of word 'rent'. Judgment of Laxmikant Sinal Lotlekar & Anr. Vs. Raghuvir Sinai Lotlekar & Anr. [1984 Mah LJ 938] is relied upon in support of contention that document introduced in the cross-examination are not meant to prove original case.

22. So far as the judgment of Shri Rikhu Dev (supra) relied upon by the Petitioner is concerned, present suit premises are found to be not capable of being let under the definition of 'premises'. Therefore the question of application of Section 5(11)(c) of the Rent Act for considering the original Defendant or his disciple (chela) as tenant does not arise. Therefore, the said judgment also will not advance the case of the Petitioner.

23. So far as the argument that 24 rent receipts for 40 years from 1927 to 1967 is concerned, this argument must be considered in the light of law laid down by the Laxmikant S. Lotlekar (supra). In the said judgment, this Court was considering a case where certain documents were introduced in evidence by way of cross-examination. In the said judgment, this Court has taken a view, after considering the provisions of Order XIII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC', for short) that if certain documents are introduced in evidence by way of cross-examination then they are not meant to prove the original case of either party in plaint or written statement. It is also held that Defendant is not entitled to introduce documents to prove his WP.3897.2001 C2F.doc original case in the course of cross-examination.