Roshan Lal vs. Wattan Singh Dogra

Held

The High Court upheld the order of the learned Civil Judge, dismissing the tenant's petition. The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The reasoning was based on the lack of clarity and authenticity of the invoices sought to be proved by secondary evidence. The Court observed that the photocopies of the invoices did not bear the name of any firm or party. Even if the TIN/GST number could be used for verification, the invoices themselves did not indicate to whom they were issued. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the lower court that the tenant's application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act failed to establish how these documents bore any bearing on the case, especially since there was no mention of the buyer's name on the invoices. Consequently, the Court found force in the landlord's contention regarding the doubtful authenticity and genuineness of the bills. The petition was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.

Facts

The petitioner, a tenant, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated June 12, 2018, passed by the Civil Judge, Court No. IV, Hamirpur. The impugned order rejected the tenant's application filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, which sought to lead secondary evidence to prove certain invoices. The landlord had filed a petition for eviction, alleging the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises, failed to pay rent, and for bona fide requirement. The tenant claimed to be in possession as a lessee for ninety-nine years, having paid lease money. To counter the eviction grounds, the tenant sought to prove invoices, claiming the original bill book from 2012 was destroyed. The landlord contended that the photocopies of the invoices were not genuine and were fabricated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Civil Judge erred in rejecting the tenant's application for leading secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove certain invoices, thereby violating the tenant's right to present his case? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner-tenant argued that the original bill book for the year 2012 was destroyed, necessitating the use of secondary evidence to prove the invoices. They contended that photocopies of these documents were produced at the time of filing the reply and are part of the court record. The tenant further argued that the authenticity of the bills could be verified from the TIN/GST number reflected on them. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent-landlord argued that the photocopies of the documents intended to be proved by secondary evidence were not genuine but were bogus and fabricated, prepared with malafide intention to mislead the court. The landlord also contended that the invoices lacked the name of any firm or party, and there was no mention of the buyer, casting doubt on their authenticity and relevance to the case.