Dismissed

Sangat Singh and Anr. v. Balraj Aggarwal and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Aug 2010CR/2354/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision dismissed against the Rent Controller's refusal to admit secondary evidence for a rent agreement. The court held the Controller rightly declined the prayer as the applicant failed to prove the original's existence or loss, rendering the photocopy unreliable.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order of the Rent Controller declining secondary evidence stood affirmed.

Sangat Singh and Anr. Vs Balraj Aggarwal and Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2354 of 2010

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Civil Revision No. 2354 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision: 20.8.2010

¶6

Sangat Singh and Another

¶7

…Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Balraj Aggarwal and Another

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. G.S. Sawhney, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

¶14

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶15

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.2.2010, passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby the application dated 29.1.2010 for leading secondary evidence to prove the rent agreement (Annexure P3) was declined. Petitioner No.1 appeared in the witness box and his statement is annexed with the present revision petition as Annexure P4.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondents had cross-examined petitioner No.1, regarding the validity of the rent agreement. When the contents of rent agreement (Annexure P3) were put to him, he stated that he was not certain that it contained the signatures of his father. After the opposite side made a gain in the cross-examination, an

¶17

Civil Revision No. 2354 of 2010

¶18

¶19

application dated 29.1.2010 was filed for proving rent agreement (Annexure P3) by way of leading secondary evidence. It was stated in the application that rent agreement was to be proved from the photocopy. Nothing was stated regarding the existence and loss of the original agreement.

¶20

The Rent Controller, Chandigarh, has rightly declined the prayer of petitioner No.1 to lead secondary evidence to prove rent agreement as even on the photocopy thereof, petitioner No.1 is not certain that it contained the signatures of his father. Not even a word has been stated in the application dated 29.1.2010 regarding the whereabouts of the original rent agreement.

¶21

Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the discretion validly exercised by the Rent Controller.

¶22

Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.

¶23

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶24

August 20, 2010 “ DK ”

Sangat Singh and Anr. v. Balraj Aggarwal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangat Singh and Anr. v. Balraj Aggarwal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navi Cooke Vs J.P. Sharma

Navi Cooke Vs J P Sharma

Laxmi Devi Vs Jang Bahadur

Pinki Rani Vs Anil Mahajan

Nand Lal Vs Ashok Kuamr

Ramesh Chander @ Ramesh Kumar & Anr. Vs Jeet Singh & Ors.