- (1.) In this revision petition, the tenant had challenged order of 30.01.2014 (Annexure P-5) of the Rent Controller whereby the landlady had been allowed to lead secondary evidence of lease deed of 14.10.2006. It is claimed that secondary evidence was permitted to be led on oral request of the landlady and that too without any opportunity of contest having been provided to the tenant. It is further averred that not only the landlady was required to produce the original document but was also required to prove existence of the document before seeking permission to lead secondary evidence thereof.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent-landlady, on the other hand, has claimed that since, circumstances sufficient enough to form foundation of leading secondary evidence had been brought on record, permission to lead secondary evidence was allowed. It is claimed that the revisionist-tenant is delaying and dilating the matter of his eviction on one score or the other.
(3.) Counsel for the parties have been heard at length while going through the grounds of revision, impugned order as also the attending facts and circumstances emerging from the paper-book. An eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was filed by the landlady against the tenant. Premises are commercial. The landlady came with a definite stand of inception of tenancy in favour of the revisionist-tenant with effect from 15.10.2006 in pursuance to lease-deed dated 14.10.2006, the lease period being 11 months. Relevant pleadings of the landlady, on this count, are contained in para 2 of the eviction petition (Annexure P-1) which for ready reference are reproduced as below:- "2. That the respondent is a tenant of the above said SCF/premises in dispute detail in para no.1 of the petition @ Rs.11,000/- p.m. (Rupees Eleven Thousand only) besides electricity as per lease agreement dated 14.10.2006 and the lease was for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 15.10.2006 as per lease agreement and now the respondent is a statutory tenant." In his written statement preferred by the tenant, tough contest was made by him. Though rate of rent was admitted to be Rs. 11,000/- per month but it was claimed that there was no written lease-deed and that the tenancy was oral. Reply of the tenant for ready reference in its relevant portion is reproduced as next page:- "3. That the contents of para No.2 of the petition is correct to the extent that the rental amount is of Rs.11000/- per month. It is made clear that the rent amount was fixed as Rs.9000/- w.e.f. February, 2004 till February, 2006 and later on, no rent agreement was executed between the parties, and no limitation of time of tenancy was settled/fixed and the tenancy was further approved between the parties orally and the rent was enhanced to Rs.11,000/- per month as per the prevailing rate of rent in the market, as per the wish and choice of the petitioner.;