High Court · 2012

Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this application fi led under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been taken up for disposa l at the admission stage. The plaintiff Tarachand Chimanram filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff N o.1 at Dibrugarh for ejectment, recovery of arrear rent amounting to Rs.8,800/- since January, 2009 to August, 2009, compensation of @Rs.100/- per day since 1.9 .2009 till eviction and recovery of suit premises, cost of the suit etc., agains t the defendant, who is the petitioner before this Court and the suit was regist ered as Title Suit No.3/2011. The defendant filed written statement taking various pleas. Apart from o ther pleas taken, it had been also contended in the written statement that the p laint has not been signed and verified by a proper competent person and that the affidavit sworn by Sri Ashok Kumar Chowdhury is false as he concealed material facts. It has also been pleaded that he is not the Karta of M/S Tarachand Chiman ram, who had filed the suit and his age is not 59 years, as mentioned in the aff idavit. The defendant filed a petition under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC praying for a direction to the plaintiff to furnish documents, namely, ( a) Birth Certificate of Ashok Kumar Choudhury, (b) School/Educational certificat e of Ashok Kumar Choudhury, (c) Deed of Adoption, (d) Driving Licence, (e) Rent Receipt Book uptodate and (f) Death Certificate of (i) Late Chimanram Choudhury (ii) Late Keshridevi Choudhury and (iii) Late Jagadish Prasad Choudhury and also to furnish list of other tenants in the building owned by the plaintiff, whereo n the suit premises is located. By order dated 27..4.2011, this petition came to be rejected on the grou nd that in a suit for eviction under the Rent Control Act, the documents sought for have no relevance. However, the learned trial Court also observed that the R ent Receipt Book may be directed to be produced at a later stage. Challenging th e aforesaid order, this revision application has been filed before this Court. At the very outset, Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent, in his usual fairness, submits that he has volunteered to produce the Deed of Adoption and will file an appropriate application before the learned trial Court to brin g on record the said Deed of Adoption, which was sought for by the defendant, wi th a copy to the defendant. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended tha t the documents sought for by the defendant are very relevant for the purpose of just determination of the case and the learned trial Court committed manifest i llegality in rejecting their petition holding that such documents have no releva ncy in an ejectment suit. Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the opposite party admits that his age was wrongly recorded in the affidavit and his actual age is 52 years. He su bmits that the same was an inadvertent error and he would file an appropriate ap plication before the learned trial Court to correct the mistake. So far as other documents are concerned, the learned counsel submits that the learned trial Cou rt has rightly observed that the documents sought for, cannot have any relevance in an ejectment suit. Mr. Choudhury has also drawn my attention to the rent rec eipts annexed as Annexure-1 series to the affidavit filed before this Court to s how that it was Ashok Kumar Chowdhury, who (cid:28)as owner (cid:29) of Tarachand Chimanram was collecting rent. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of the Court to the Registered Sale Deed of the roof top, dated 15.5.1986 between Ashok Kumar Chowdh ury and the present petitioner, wherein such sale was made for self and in his c apacity as Karta of the Joint Hindu Family, known and styled as Tarachand Chiman ram. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has dra wn attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply to contend that description of Ashok Kumar Chowdhury in the Sale Deed dated 15.5.1986 as Karta, is not corr ect. It is noticeable that in the said affidavit-in-reply, the Sale Deed was not disputed. What was only disputed, was the representation of Ashok Kumar Chou dhury as the Karta in the Sale Deed. In the context of an ejectment suit between the landlord and the tenant, it is n ot understood how Driving Licence or School/Educational Certificate etc. could b e relevant. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel has submitted that the Death Cer tificates of Late Chimanram Choudhury, Late Keshridevi Choudhury and Late Jagadi sh Choudhury are necessary to prove that Ashok Kumar Choudhury is not the son o f Late Chimanram Choudhury and so, he is not the Karta of the plaintiff family f irm as also to ascertain the validity or otherwise of the Deed of Adoption. The validity of the Deed of Adoption is not a subject matter of the suit and, theref ore, said documents cannot be said to be relevant for the purpose of this case. It is also noticed that an issue has been framed as to whether Ashok Kumar Choud hury is the Karta of the plaintiff and it is an established proposition of law t hat the plaintiff must prove his case. As Mr. Choudhury himself has volunteered to bring on record the Deed of Adoption, this Court does not consider it necessary to dwell on the issue. This Court is also of the opinion that ends of justice will be subserved, if a direct ion is issued to the plaintiff to furnish the list of the tenants in the buildin g owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is, accordingly, directed to produce the same. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel does not have any objection to the co urse of action as suggested by Mr. Choudhury in order to correct his age and, th erefore, no orders are called for with regard to the birth certificate of the pl aintiff. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this revision petition sta nds disposed of. The parties to this proceeding, however, will be at liberty to produce s uch evidence, as may be required, to prove their respective cases. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the parties will ap pear before the learned trial Court on 11th June, 2012.