Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -non -applicant against order dated 10.09.2015 passed by Rent Tribunal, Jaipur(for short 'the Tribunal') whereby application filed by the petitioner to delete the exhibits marked on certified copies of documents, i.e. Exhibits 7 to 10 has been dismissed.
(2.) Application was filed by the petitioner on 22.08.2015 that Exhibits 7, 8, 9 and 10 being certified copies are not admissible in evidence inasmuch as Exhibit -9 is not original, but certified copy thereof and Exhibit 7, 8 and 10 are certified copies of lease deed, none of them are admissible in evidence. Exhibit -6 is mere Photostat copy of the original and not admissible in evidence. Prayer was made that aforesaid Exhibit 6 to 10 be ordered to be de -exhibited. It may be noted that the aforesaid application was filed by the respondent -landlord in the petition for eviction and awarding mesne profit filed against the petitioner -society. The respondent contested the application. The trial court vide impugned order dated 10.09.2015 partly allowed the application to the extent of document, Exhibit -6 which was held to be not admissible in evidence, but the respondent -landlord was permitted to produce on record original of the aforesaid document Exhibit -6. The application with regard to documents, i.e. Exhibit 7 to 10 was rejected on the premise that these are certified copies of lease deeds registered with Sub Registrar, Stamp and Registration and therefore, admissible in evidence with reference to Sec. 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872(for short 'the Evidence Act').
(3.) Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal seriously erred in law in not appreciating the provisions contained in Ss. 62 to 65 and 74 of the Evidence Act. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that certified copies of registered documents and/or lease deeds are not public documents inasmuch as all such documents are returned in original to the parties, who present them for registration. As per Sec. 62 of the Evidence Act, primary evidence means the documents itself and not the certified copy of the same. The tribunal failed to appreciate that certified copy of a document falls within the meaning of secondary evidence under Sec. 63 of the Evidence Act and cannot be admitted in evidence without seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence in terms of Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act. It is argued that the Tribunal while allowing the application to the extent of Exhibit -6 was wholly unjustified in permitting the landlord to produce original thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of her arguments, relied on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Rekha Rana & Others v/s. Smt. Ratnashree Jain,, AIR 2006 Madhya Pradesh 107, especially para 19(ii) and on that basis submitted that production and marking of a certified copy as secondary evidence of a private document, either a registered document like a sale deed or any unregistered document, is permissible only after laying the foundation for acceptance of secondary evidence under clause (a), (b) or (c) of Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act.;