of the plaintiff an independent witness, Ghanshyam has tried to prove the fact that even in his presence Rs.1,000/monthly rent was fixed but evidence thereon has not been accepted by the trial court. The trial court considered the accommodation provided to the tenant that it was only one room, store, bathroom and latrine without kitchen. The trial court has also based its finding stating that in this regard no documentary evidence could be produced by the plaintiff. When there was dispute regarding rate of rent then it was also the duty of the plaintiff land-lord to get the rate of rent from administration and after filing the same the plaintiff land-lord could argue that in the area where the house in suit exists is not so as said by the defendant and for such accommodation the rate of rent is not less than Rs.1,000/-. It is known to all that the Government has fixed the market value of the properties and also rate of rent of the urban areas, therefore, the rate of rent fixed by the Government was very much available in Collectorate which could be obtained by the plaintiff land-lord to prove the averments of the plaint. Thus, it is found that there is omission on the part of the plaintiff land-lord, therefore, a presumption arises against the plaintiff that if any public document is already available and the same has not been filed by the concerned party it would be presumed that it is against the party who had not filed it.
