Case Note & Summary
The petitioner-landlord challenged the order dated 5.8.2003 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Solapur, rejecting his application for review of the order dated 10.1.2002 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Solapur, which fixed the standard rent of the premises at Rs.16 per month plus municipal taxes. The landlord had initiated proceedings for fixation of standard rent, contending that the standard rent ought to be Rs.50 per month. The appellate court relied on a document (exh.35) which was a form filled by the landlord and tendered to the Municipal Corporation under Chapter 8(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The landlord sought review on the ground that this document had not been proved. The High Court noted that the document was not treated as a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, but it was taken to be proved since it was produced by an officer of the Municipal Corporation who was summoned to prove it. The court held that merely because the witness stated that he had no personal knowledge of the contents would not render the document liable to be discarded. The document came from proper custody and there was no averment in the petition that the contents were not filled in by the landlord or the owner. Therefore, the court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Admissibility of Documents - Document from Municipal Corporation - The court considered whether a form filled by the landlord and tendered to the Municipal Corporation under Chapter 8(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, produced by an officer who had no personal knowledge of its contents, could be treated as proved. The court held that the document was not a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, but it was proved because it came from proper custody and there was no averment that the contents were not filled in by the landlord. The officer's lack of personal knowledge did not render the document liable to be discarded. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a document produced by a Municipal Corporation officer, who has no personal knowledge of its contents, can be considered proved and relied upon for fixation of standard rent.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order rejecting the review application is upheld.
Law Points
- Document produced by Municipal Corporation officer from proper custody is admissible even if officer has no personal knowledge of contents
- Section 74 Evidence Act not applicable to such documents
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (01) 10
Writ Petition No.8427 of 2003
I.M. Khairdi for the petitioner
Smt. Rajasbai Vidyadhar Gaikwad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of review application in standard rent fixation proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner-landlord sought to challenge the order rejecting his review application and to set aside the standard rent fixed at Rs.16 per month.
Filing Reason
Petitioner-landlord contended that the appellate court relied on an unproved document (exh.35) for fixing standard rent.
Previous Decisions
The Vth Additional District Judge, Solapur, fixed standard rent at Rs.16 per month plus municipal taxes by order dated 10.1.2002. The IIIrd Additional District Judge, Solapur, rejected the review application on 5.8.2003.
Issues
Whether the document (exh.35) produced by a Municipal Corporation officer, who had no personal knowledge of its contents, was properly proved and could be relied upon for fixation of standard rent.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the document (exh.35) was not a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act and could not be considered proved as the officer who produced it had no personal knowledge of its contents.
Ratio Decidendi
A document produced by a Municipal Corporation officer from proper custody is admissible in evidence even if the officer has no personal knowledge of its contents, provided there is no averment that the contents are not genuine. Such a document need not be treated as a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act to be proved.
Judgment Excerpts
Merely because the witness stated that he had no personal knowledge of the contents would not render a document liable to be discarded.
In this view of the matter and having regard to the fact that the document came from proper custody and the fact that there is no averment in the petition that the contents of the documents are not filled in by the petitioner or by the owner of the property, there is no reason to interfere.
Procedural History
The petitioner-landlord initiated proceedings for fixation of standard rent. The Vth Additional District Judge, Solapur, fixed standard rent at Rs.16 per month plus municipal taxes on 10.1.2002. The petitioner sought review before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Solapur, which was rejected on 5.8.2003. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 74
- Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949: Chapter 8(2)
