High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the admissibility of rent notes produced by the respondent-landlord without prior permission. Held that the rent controller was not bound to draw adverse inference and the petitioner's submission lacks merit. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CR-60-2019
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.60 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision:January 14, 2019.
Tajinderpal Singh
......PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
Bhagat Singh
....RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner (s).
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
Heard.
The objections raised by revision petitioner regarding admissibility of documents Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 (rent note) were declined by the Rent Controller.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that before filing the written statement, the petitioner moved application for production of rent note but the same was not produced. Learned Rent Controller disposed of the application with the observation that both the parties can not produce these documents during trial without prior permission of the Court and that adverse inference would be drawn against the party in possession of aforesaid documents but intentionally avoiding to disclose it. Respondentlandlord produced these documents without permission of the Rent
SACHIN MEHTA 2019.01.24 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
CR-60-2019
-2-
Controller and this fact has not been looked into by learned Rent Controller while discarding the objections raised by the petitioner-tenant.
Learned Rent Controller while discarding the objections raised by the petitioner-tenant regarding the production of rent note Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, has observed as follows:-
“As per order dated 20.08.2016, applications filed by respondent wherein he sought direction to the petitioner to produce any rent note, if executed between the petitioner and respondent but as both the parties were not sure about execution of any such rent note between the parties, therefore, applications were disposed of with direction that adverse inference would be drawn against the parties (sic party) in whose possession the aforesaid documents appears to be and intentionally does not disclose about their possession and existence. Thereafter, after filing of reply by the respondent to the main petition, the petitioner filed rejoinder/replication wherein he produced rent agreements in question and stated that same have been traced out, thus, whether these documents were not intentionally disclosed or produced by the petitioner at the time of passing order dated 20.08.2016 can only be considered after completion of evidence and at the time of final arguments and at this stage, no case is made out for taking adverse inference against the petitioner.”
Both the documents i.e. rent note Ex.P2 and P3 were produced
and exhibited by the Rent Controller and the objections taken by the petitioner-tenant were declined which amounts to permission of the Court to produce these documents. So far as the drawing of adverse inference regarding not producing these documents when the application was filed by
SACHIN MEHTA 2019.01.24 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
CR-60-2019
-3-
the petitioner-tenant is concerned, learned Rent Controller has kept the matter pending to be seen at the time of final arguments. Even otherwise, at this stage of recording evidence, no order qua this fact can be passed.
In view of the above discussion, I find no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.
No other point has been argued.
This petition has no merits. Dismissed.
( SURINDER GUPTA ) January 14, 2019. JUDGE Sachin M.
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No
SACHIN MEHTA 2019.01.24 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the objections raised by the petitioner-tenant regarding the admissibility of rent notes produced by the respondent-landlord without prior court permission sustain in the facts and circumstanc
Tajinderpal Singh
Bhagat Singh
Surinder Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
