Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -tenant against two orders passed by the Rent Tribunal dated 22.2.2014. By those orders, the Rent Tribunal has dismissed the applications of the petitioner under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act to place on record certain documents.
(2.) FACTS of the case are that in the month of August, 2008, the respondent -applicant filed an application No. 16/2008 titled Salim Ahmad vs. Smt. Santosh Devi under the Rent Control Act for revision of rent and eviction. Petitioner filed reply to the application and the respondent also filed rejoinder to the reply of the petitioner. On 15.12.2012, petitioner moved an application under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act for taking the registered sale deed dated 5.4.2003, photo copy of power of attorney dated 26.8.2003 and also one notice dated 18.5.2005 on record and for summoning the original power of attorney dated 16.8.2003. The non -petitioner filed reply to the application on 20.3.2013. On 9.11.2013, petitioner filed another application under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act for taking the certified copy of the register of the notary public where the execution of the said power of attorney is registered. On 26.11.2013, applicant non -petitioner filed the reply to the application and prayed to dismiss the application. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed both the applications vide its two separate orders dated 22.2.2014. Hence this writ petition. Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in rejecting the application of the petitioner to take on record the aforementioned documents on the ground that they are not relevant. It is contended that the question of relevancy cannot be decided at interlocutory stage. The learned trial court failed to grasp the point of the petitioner that by producing those documents, the petitioner wants to prove necessity of the landlord as sham and that this plea was falsely taken by the landlord. The respondent -Salim Ahmad was in connivance with Jamila Begum. Petitioner wants to bring on record copy of the power of attorney because the respondent landlord denied the same. The time limit prescribed under Section 15(2) to place a document could not be applicable if the matter is considered in the light of provisions contained in Section 21 of the Rent Control Act. The landlord set up a false case by denying the existence of power of attorney and now by production of photocopy thereof, his bona fides stand exposed and that its production was essential for effective decision of the matter.
(3.) SHRI Hanish Khan, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner in the reply to the eviction petition has not disputed the status of the respondent as landlord, rather he has admitted the status of the respondent as landlord and his own status as tenant and has asserted in para 3 of the reply that there was no disputed with regard to ownership or title of the disputed property and that such a dispute cannot be decided under the Rent Control Act. In reply to the eviction petition, petitioner has admitted that respondent was partner with Jamila Begum in their properties and that he was managing all her properties. The petitioner by application has sought to place on record the photo copy of the power of attorney said to have been executed by Jamila Begum in favor of respondent -Salim Ahamad and that he also wanted to produce sale deed dated 5.4.2003, notice dated 18.5.2005 and also prayed to summon the original Power of Attorney dated 16.8.2003. By another application he wanted to take certified copy of the register of the notary public. Both of which applications have been dismissed.;