hold good for yet another reason as well. Besides being the
person, who filed the rent control petition, projecting the
bonafide need for occupation of the petition schedule shop
room for starting business for her husband, she is a
competent witness to depose for her husband in view of the
provision under Section 120 of the Evidence Act. Sec.120 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which reads thus:
Sec 120. Parties to civil suit, and their wives or
husbands. - Husband or wife of person under criminal
trial.- In all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and
the husband or wife of any party to the suit, shall be
competent witnesses. In criminal proceedings against any
person, the husband or wife of such person, respectively,
shall be competent witness.
8. True that the area of operation of CPC is limited by
Section 23 of the Act. The said Section under the caption
'Summons etc.-' specifies the provisions of CPC which are
applicable to rent control proceedings. It also undoubtedly
reveals that the authorities under the Act are given powers
of which are vested in a civil court when dealing with
matters enumerated therein which admittedly includes
'examining witnesses on oath' under sub-section (1) (d).
Thus, it is evident that when dealing with 'examination of
witnesses on oath' it has the power vested in a Court under
the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit and therefore,
in the light of the provision under Section 120, the husband
or wife of any party in the said suit shall be a competent
witness in such a proceeding before the Rent Control Court.
In such circumstances, going by Sec. 120 of the Evidence Act,
the petitioner who is none other than the spouse of the
person for whose need eviction of the revision petition is
sought for, has to be treated as a competent witness and
since she was examined as PW1 the non-examination of the
husband of the petitioner would be of no consequences. It is
relevant to note, in the case on hand, the very rent control
petition itself was filed by her on the ground of bonafide
requirement of the shop room in question, for her husband
to start the business. In the circumstances it cannot be said
that she had deposed in respect of matters which were not
within her personal knowledge. There is no case for the
revision petitioner that she had not deposed before the Rent
Control Court in tune with the pleadings in the Rent Control
Petition regarding the bonafide need or that something
which would discredit her version was elicited from her. A
long and short of the discussions is that there is no merit in
the contention based on the non-examination of the
landlady's husband.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
R.C.R.No. 13 of 2018
MANGATTIL UMMER Vs UMMU HABEEBA
Dated:16th day of January, 2018
