AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Singh, J.—By way of present petition, Petitioner is challenging order dated 25.5.2009 passed by Rent Controller, Karnal whereby an application of the landlord-Petitioner seeking permission to place on record additional evidence was rejected.
The brief facts of the present case are that an eviction petition was filed against the Respondents on the ground that Respondents have sub let the demised premises for installation of ATM of State Bank of India. In the application it has been submitted that during the pendency of the case, Petitioner-landlord received information under the Right to Information Act on 2.2.2009 that ATM has been installed in the demised premises. It has been stated that information received under RTI Act is must for fair adjudication of the case.
Application was rejected by learned Rent Controller on the ground that earlier an application was moved seeking permission to produce additional evidence which was allowed vide order dated 18.7.2008. It reveals from the record that earlier application was for examination of two witnesses PW-7 and PW-8 and the present application is to place on record the letter received under RTI Act from the State Bank of India thereafter.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Satnam Singh v. Devinder Kaur reported in 2007(1) P.L.R. 475. This Court in para Nos. 11 and 12 has held as under:
The learned trial Court by allowing application for additional evidence has merely held that the evidence sought to be produced was material evidence without disclosing as to how the same was relevant. The learned trial Court has further not considered the argument raised by the Petitioner as to how and why the evidence which was earlier within the knowledge of the Plaintiff -Respondent, was not produced when the evidence was being led in affirmative.
The learned trial Court has also not taken note of the fact that the provision of additional evidence has been deleted so as to discourage the leading of additional evidence. The additional evidence can only be allowed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the Court and it is settled that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is to be based on principles of equity and justice. The Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction cannot act in prejudice to one party.
There is no dispute about the ratio laid down by this Court in the matter of Satnam Singh (supra), however, in the present case, eviction petition is filed on the ground that tenant has sublet the demised property to the State Bank of India for installation of ATM. To prove installation of ATM of State Bank of India, information received by the Petitioner under the RTI Act seems to be important for the fair adjudication of the issue involved in the case.
In the opinion of this Court any additional evidence which was not in the possession and custody of the party and which came into possession of the party afterwards and which is just and proper for the fair adjudication of the case same should be permitted to be placed on record.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, present petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be at liberty to place on record the additional evidence sought to be filed.
Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.10.2010.