Vijay Pal and Others vs Babita Dubey

Surjit Singh, J.—Two cases are going on between the parties. One of the cases is a civil suit filed by the Respondent/landlord for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the Petitioners/tenants from changing nature of the tenanted structure and also raising any construction on the vacant portion of the tenanted premises. Plea raised by the Petitioners in the civil suit is that they are in possession, in their own right, having remained in adverse possession for more than 12 years.

The other case is in the nature of petition, u/s 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, for eviction. This petition has also been filed by the Respondent/landlord against the Petitioners/tenants. Eviction has been sought on some of the statutory grounds. In that petition also, plea taken by the Petitioners/tenants is denial of relationship of landlord and tenant and they have claimed title in themselves.

Petitioners/tenants filed an application in both the cases seeking leave of the Court to place on record a certified copy of statement made by one Mohinder Lal in some earlier suit of 1992 to prove that some order of eviction, passed in respect of premises, in question, in favour of original landlord and against the predecessor of the present Petitioners, remained unexecuted. They have also sought leave to file a certified copy of the judgment delivered by the trial court in that civil suit of 1992. In one of the cases, i.e., civil suit, application has been partly allowed and the Petitioners have been permitted to place on record certified copy of statement of Mohinder Lal and in the second case, i.e. eviction petition, the application has been rejected in its entirety. The Petitioners have challenged this order of total rejection on their application.

I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties. The sole question involved in both cases pending in the lower fora, i.e. civil suit, as also the eviction petition, is whether the Petitioners are tenants or they have acquired title by way of prescription. Now, when statement of Mohinder Lal has been allowed to be placed on record in the civil suit, the same should have been allowed to be placed on record in the eviction petition also, because question involved in both the litigations is same.

Learned Counsel representing the Respondent submits that statement of Mohinder Lal is not relevant. This aspect of the matter is to be gone into by the trial court/Rent Controller.

So far as prayer for placing on record certified copy of the judgment delivered by the trial court in civil suit of 1992 is concerned, learned Counsel representing the Respondent submits that judgment has been set aside by the Additional District Judge and the appeal filed by the Petitioners against judgment of learned Additional District Judge has been dismissed by this Court in RSA No. 268 of 2000. This fact is not denied by learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Hence, there should not be any need for placing on record the judgment of the trial court delivered in the aforesaid civil suit of 1992.

In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the extent it rejects the application of the Petitioners for placing on record certified copy of the statement of Mohinder Lal. Consequently, the Petitioners shall be permitted by the Rent Controller to place on record certified copy of the statement of Mohinder Lal in the civil suit of 1992. Respondents shall have the right to rebut the evidence in the nature of the aforesaid statement by oral/documentary evidence.