- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioner and Mr. K. M. Garg for the respondents. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 10-2-2000 whereby the ap plication filed by the petitioner for sum moning the sanctioned plan was rejected and the order dated 20-4-2000 whereby application filed by the petitioner for recalling the earlier order was rejected by the authority below.
(2.) IT appears that in the proceedings under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Build ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short, 'the Act'), controversy regarding sufficiency of accommodation in possession of the landlord was involved. According to the petitioner, there was suf ficient accommodation including a clinic in possession of the landlord which could be proved by the sanctioned plan itself which was in possession of the landlord; but in spite of the request made and notice given to him by the petitioner, he was not producing the same. The petitioner filed an application for summoning the sanc tioned plan from the competent authority. The application filed by the petitioner was objected to and opposed by the other side. IT was ultimately dismissed by order dated 10- 2-2000. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application for recalling the said order and issuing a direction to the respondent No. 2 for producing the sanctioned plan. The said application was also rejected on 20-4-2000, hence the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the facts and cir cumstances of the present case, it was necessary to direct the landlord to produce the sanctioned plan. The view taken to the contrary by the authority below is manifestly erroneous and illegal. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent submitted that the order passed by the authority below was quite valid. It was also urged that in case the petitioner wanted to rely upon the sanctioned plan, he could produce the cer tified copy of the same before the authority below. Ave considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the par ties. Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act provides as under: "65. Case in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.-Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condi tion or contents of a document in the following cases: (a) when the original is shown or appears to be in me possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it. "
(3.) IN the present case, apparently, the conditions as envisaged under clause (a) of Section 65 exist, INasmuch as the original sanctioned plan was alleged to be in pos session of respondent No. 2 who did not produce the same in spite of notice given to him under Section 66 of the Evidence Act, therefore, the petitioner was at liberty to produce the secondary evidence. On the other hand it was contended by the respon dent No. 2 that the sanctioned plan was a public document, therefore, the petitioner was at liberty to take advance of the plea taken by the said respondent and file cer tified copy of the sanctioned plan as a public Document within the meaning of the term used under Section 74 of the Evidence Act which read as under: "74. Public documents.--The following documents are public documents- (a) documents forming the acts or records of the acts- (1) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of INdia or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country; (2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents. " In view of the provisions of Sec-tion76 certified copies of the public docu ment could be obtained from the authority concerned and could be filed in the proceedings before the authorities con cerned after following the procedure prescribed under Sections 76,77 and 79 of the said Act. Thus legally there was no hurdle in the way of the petitioner to ob tain the certified copy from the competent authority and to file the same before the authority below. The apprehension of the petitioner that after a certified copy is filed the objection maybe raised by the respon dent No. 2 regarding admissibility of the same is totally baseless and misconceived.;