Sita Ram and Another vs Bhim Sain

K. Kannan, J.—The landlord who has received two concurrent orders from the Courts below is the revision petitioner before this Court. The petition was filed on the basis that the property had been purchased through a registered document and the respondent became a tenant under the petitioner agreeing to pay rent of Rs. 200/-. The tenant denied that he was in possession of the property as a tenant and that he was himself the owner of the premises having obtained the registry relating to payment of tax in his own name. The landlord produced photocopies of rent receipts before the Court and there was no explanation given as to why the originals of the counterfoils of the rent receipts were not filed in Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner only argues that the tenant himself had not taken any objection for production of the photocopies at the time when the documents were tendered. Both the Courts below held that the tenant was contending that the rental arrangement as pleaded by the landlord was false and that there had been at no point of time any payment of rent. Indeed in this case the landlord had originally filed the petition that the rent fixed was Rs. 300/- and subsequently he had the petition amended stating that the rent was only Rs. 200/- and what was stated originally was a mistake. There could be no contention that the photocopy was allowed to be accepted without any objection and therefore, the tenant cannot take an objection for the non-production of the originals. I cannot also accept an argument that since the tenant had not given any complaint to police about alleged forgery, he cannot complain against the genuineness of the document, for a person, who relies on a document, is bound to prove the same if party against whom the document is sought to be proved denies the execution. The non-filing of complaint to police is hardly relevant when the landlord had taken no steps to even produce the originals. While a secondary evidence shall be permissible for admitted documents in the manner contemplated u/s 65, there can be no estoppel about a person contending that the secondary evidence itself could not have been received when he was denying that he had ever executed the document. The effect of it would be that the landlord was pleading for a case of jural relationship between himself and a tenant without any instrument and the document filed was insufficient to establish the said relationship. When the defendant was contending that he was in possession of the property in his own right and had obtained the registry in his own name, nothing was elicited in the cross-examination about how he could have otherwise been in possession if it was not under alleged tenancy. The cross-examination itself has been very skeletal and the best of evidence was not brought about that the respondent''s possession could not have been in other capacity than as a tenant. The case filed by the landlord required an examination of a fundamental issue that the landlord did not establish the relationship between himself and the tenant. It is again a basic principle of law that in the rent control proceedings, the Court did not examine the issue of title itself and the proceedings could be founded only on an admitted status of landlord and tenant between the parties or when a dispute is raised with reference to such a claim, the adjudication results in a finding that the relationship was established before the Court could pass appropriate orders for eviction. In this case, the landlord had not proved such relationship and therefore, the dismissal before the Courts below cannot be assailed. The landlord would be at liberty to file a proper civil suit to establish his own title to the property and seek for a recovery of possession in the manner permissible by law.

The civil revision is dismissed but with liberty as aforesaid.