- (1.) The tenants are before this court challenging the order dated 20.7.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by them for permission to lead secondary evidence to prove partnership deed dated 1.4.1974, was dismissed.
(2.) The proceedings arise out of an eviction petition filed by respondents No. 1 and 2-landlords before the learned Rent Controller in December, 1995, inter-alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent, the premises having become unfit and unsafe for human use and occupation, material impairment in value and utility of the rented premises and on the ground of subletting. It was during the course of proceedings in the aforesaid rent petition that application was filed by the petitioners for leading secondary evidence to prove partnership deed dated 1.4.1974. The prayer having been rejected, the order is challenged before this court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Rent Controller had committed illegality and irregularity in not permitting the petitioners to prove the partnership deed dated 1.4.1974 by leading secondary evidence on the premise that 45 effective opportunities had already been granted to the petitioners to lead evidence. In fact, vide order dated 11.2.2009, the issues were re-framed by the court. Thereafter, both the parties were to be permitted to lead evidence. Respondents No. 1 and 2-landlords concluded their evidence on 20.2.2009. Immediately thereafter the petitioners filed application on 2.3.2009 seeking permission to prove partnership deed dated 1.4.1974 by leading secondary evidence. The same would have shown that Shiv Kumar, against whom the allegation of subletting is there, was in fact a partner in the firm. The original partnership deed was lost in the Income-tax Department. The plea regarding partnership deed was taken even in the reply originally filed. The learned Rent Controller had gone wrong in noticing that the case was not fixed for evidence of the petitioners. As there was some error in recording of the order, application for correction of the order was filed after the impugned order was passed by the learned Rent Controller. Even if there is some delay, respondents No. 1 and 2-landlords can be compensated with cost. Reliance was placed upon Satnam Singh Sharma v. Tarloki Nath Kalia and another, 1974 AIR(P&H) 287.;