AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Abhinava Upadhya, J.
Heard Shri P.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Sumit Daga learned counsel for the respondent.
By means of this revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 3.2.2012 of the Court below rejecting his application for taking on the record certain further documents. The said documents are in the nature of receipts issued by the landlord in respect of other tenants.
According to leaned counsel for the revisionist these receipts were important to establish the fact against the statement of the landlord that he is continuously being issuing receipts upon receiving of rent and by these documents, learned counsel for the revisionist suggest that he will be able to prove that in respect of other tenants regular receipts were not being issued by the landlord.
Upon being asked with regard to the application of Act No. 13 of 1972, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the claim before the court below was that the said Act applies whereas learned counsel for the respondent stated that it is not applicable as the construction of the house is after 1985.
Learned counsel for the revisionist could not show anything contrary to rebut the aforesaid assertion of the counsel for the respondent. Furthermore, the tenant was allowed time to file documentary evidence up to 8.11.2010, whatever documents were required were filed. Thereafter, at the stage of oral evidence, now another application has been filed to furnish certain other documents. The other documents are the ones which have been mentioned above and the Court below declined to entertain such an application and rejected the same holding that the said application has been filed only with the motive to delay the proceedings.
In my considered opinion also the aforesaid documents does not appear to be very relevant in deciding the case and the applicants does appear to be motivated to delay the proceedings.
There is no error in the order of the Court below which may warrant any further interference by this Court.
The revision is misconceived. It is accordingly, dismissed.