PUKH RAJ Vs. JUDGE RENT TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 6th February 2008, whereby the application filed by petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Sec. 151 CPC for taking two documents on record was rejected.

(2.) ACCORDING to the counsel for the petitioner, a suit for eviction was filed by the respondent No. 2-plaintiff before the Rent Tribunal on the basis of bonafide necessity and in reply to the said suit it was specifically mentioned by the petitioner- defendant that another shop situated in the same premises was vacated by his brother and at the time of vacating the said shop a receipt was given by the respondent No. 2-plaintiff for payment of rent but the respondent-plaintiff refuted his signature upon the said receipt, therefore, to prove his case that there is no ground of bonafide necessity left with the respondent No. 2- plaintiff, therefore, the petitioner filed an application for taking two documents; one, the Insurance Policy issued by New India Assurance Company and another a letter issued by Central Bank in favour of Satyanarayan Soni, the brother of petitioner on record.

(3.) HENCE, this petition is dismissed. .