Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sureshwar Thakur, J., dismissed this petition where an application for production of document relied on by respondent was in question.
Facts of the case were that respondent, landlord of the petitioner had filed a petition seeking eviction of tenant/petitioner on the ground that the property is bonafidely required by respondent for personal use. During the pendency of rent petition respondent filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code where a report prepared by a Civil Engineer was produced. Petitioner had approached this court aggrieved by the order of Rent Controller where respondent’s application as mentioned above was accepted. Petitioner contended that the documents submitted under the application was a report made after the institution of rent petition and was not existing before filing of the rent petition as it should have been under the provision.
The High Court was of the view that the document submitted was an expert report which rather falls under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The fact that there are no provisos under Order 7 Rule 14 barring opinion of an expert, the same can be permitted as an evidence even when it came into light subsequent, to, the institution of the petition. Therefore, the Court granted leave for tendering the report as evidence which is just and essential for the controversy in the rent petition and affirmed the impugned order. [Suman Bala v. Rakesh Sood,2018 SCC OnLine HP 1462, decided on 28-09-2018]