L.N MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Tenant-Balwant Kumar has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution impugning order dated 18.11.2010 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Rent Controller, Panchkula, thereby permitting respondents/landlords to lead secondary evidence of the alleged rent receipts dated 10.05.2006 and 12.12.2006
Case of the landlords/respondents is that they issued the aforesaid rent receipts signed by respondent No. 2-landlord and counter-signed by petitioner-tenant and the original receipts were given to the petitioner-tenant whereas photostat copies were retained by the landlords.
Landlords moved application (Annexure P-1) for directing the tenant to produce the original rent receipts and on their refusal to do so, to permit the landlords to prove the same by secondary evidence.
The tenant by filing reply (Annexure P-2) denied the existence and execution of the alleged rent receipts. It was pleaded that the landlords never issued any rent receipt.
Learned Rent Controller vide impugned order (Annexure P-3) partly allowed the application (Annexure P-1) and permitted the landlords to prove the alleged rent receipts by secondary evidence. Feeling aggrieved, tenant has filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani, 2007 (2) R.C.R (Civil) 840 and judgment of this Court in the case of Darshan Kaur v. The Amritsar Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited Amritsar, 2010 (1) R.C.R (Civil) 747, contended that photostat copies are not secondary evidence of the originals. It was also contended that photostat copies can be prepared by way of cut, copy and paste.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlords/respondents contended that learned Rent Controller has rightly permitted the landlords to lead secondary evidence of the rent receipts.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. J. Yashoda (supra) has not laid down that photostat copy of a document is not secondary evidence. In the case of Darshan Kaur (supra), the photostat copies had simply been placed on record without proving execution thereof. In this context, it was observed that the same could not be admitted in evidence. Thus, it cannot be said that in no eventuality, a photostat copy can be used as secondary evidence of a document. On the contrary, if a photostat copy is proved to be correct copy of the original having been compared with the original, the same can be admitted as secondary evidence in view of provisions of Section 63 of the Evidence Act. Under the said provision, even oral account of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it, is included in the definition of secondary evidence. In view of wide definition of secondary evidence given in Section 63 of the Evidence Act, it cannot be said that photostat copies cannot be secondary evidence in any event whatsoever. On the contrary, photostat copy of a document has to be proved as secondary evidence in accordance with the provisions of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. Thus, as a rule of law, it cannot be laid down that in no circumstances, photostat copy of a document can be entertained as secondary evidence of a document.
In so far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that photostat copy can be prepared by cut, copy and paste is concerned, it is for the respondents to prove the photostat copies as secondary evidence in accordance with law. Only if the respondents prove the photostat copies in accordance with law, only then they would be entitled to use it as secondary evidence. Without proving the same as such, the respondents cannot succeed. Moreover, the petitioner would get an opportunity to depict that the photostat copies of alleged rent receipts have in fact been prepared by process of cut, copy and paste or have been forged or fabricated. Merely permitting the respondents to lead secondary evidence of the alleged rent receipts does not mean that existence and execution of the rent receipts has been proved or photostat copies sought to be proved as secondary evidence have been proved to be correct copies of the originals. On the contrary, the respondents have to prove the same.
For the reasons aforesaid and subject to the observations made hereinbefore, I find no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed.