Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20880 = 2026:PHHC:032291
Decided on: 27.02.2026
Present:
Mr. Kapil Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 -- Production of original document before Rent Controller -- Pendency of other civil proceedings -- Effect -- Petitioner is directed to produce the exchange deed in original before the learned Rent Controller – Whenever the petitioner requires the said document, he may move an appropriate application before the Rent Controller, which shall be allowed subject to a specific undertaking that the document will be re-produced before the Court as and when required -- In case the petitioner requires the document for production before the Civil Court in a suit intended to be filed, a certified copy of the agreement shall be provided to the petitioner.
(Para 6)
***
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby petitioner has been directed to place original exchange deed dated 20.03.2024 on record and to supply copy of the same to the respondent.
2. Briefly, an ejectment petition has been filed by the respondent/petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application seeking dismissal of the ejectment petition filed by the respondent/petitioner or leave to contest the ejectment petition. Respondent/petitioner moved an application for production of agreement of exchange deed relied upon by the petitioner in his application. Application was contested by the petitioner. Vide impugned order, learned Rent Controller has allowed the application directing the petitioner to produce the original exchange deed.
3. Aggrieved from the order so passed, the present revision petition has been filed.
4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order is bad in law as the learned Rent Controller has not taken care to go through the contents of his reply to the application as he requires the document in original for production before Sub-Registrar for specific performance of the agreement and he has got marked his presence before the Sub-Registrar and he is ready to produce the original exchange deed and has also placed on record a coloured scanned copy of the original exchange deed before the Court.
6. Considering the fact that the main grouse of the petitioner is that in case, he produce the original document in the rent petition then his remedy to get specific performance of the agreement by moving before Sub-Registrar or before the Court of competent jurisdiction would be jeopardised, so, in such circumstances, the instant petition is disposed of with modification in the order directing the petitioner to produce the exchange deed in original before the learned Rent Controller and whenever petitioner would be requiring the same, he will move an application before the Rent Controller and the learned Rent Controller shall allow the same with specific undertaking given by the petitioner that he would re-produce the document in the Court whenever his purpose is served and in case, he requires the document for production before the Civil Court in a suit intended to be filed by the petitioner then a certified copy of the agreement be provided to the petitioner.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
Order accordingly.
********