IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 306 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.10.2011 M/s Mehar Chand & Sons …Petitioner. Versus Jaspal Kukreja & another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Subhash Punshi, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Court No. VII, Shimla, whereby he rejected the application filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) seeking permission to lead secondary evidence to prove documents, which have been marked as X, Y and Z. 2. Mark X is a photocopy of Form 3 regarding the registration of the shop under the Himachal Pradesh Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. There can be no manner of doubt that the original of such certificate has to be displayed by the shopkeeper in his shop. It is only the copy which is with the 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- department and registration can be proved from the register. Since, the original was with the tenant and there is no explanation as to why the same has not been produce, no secondary evidence qua Mark X could be permitted to be led. 3. Coming to Marks Y and Z, these are the copies of notices in Form 7. Section 2 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Shops and Commercial Establishments Act directs that the employer of every establishment shall in the prescribed Form exhibit in the establishment a notice stating forth the close day, the working hours and the period of interval of employed persons, if any. This Form has to be maintained in terms of Rule 13 of the Himachal Pradesh Shops and Commercial Establishments Rules, 1972 in Form 7. This certificate is to be signed only by the employer and the Form does not, in any manner, indicate that the same has to be counter singed by the authorities under the Himachal Pradesh Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. 4. When the Act requires a person to exhibit a notice in a particular Form, it is but obvious that it is the original notice which has to be exhibited and not the copy of the notice. Therefore, the original Form should have been in the possession of the tenant. Even otherwise, the statement of the Inspector, AW-1 Shri C.L. Sharma, is very clear that only a copy of the Form is retained by the department and not the original Form. 5. Therefore, the mere fact that the department has destroyed its record does not, in any way, give a leverage to the tenant to claim that he be permitted to lead secondary evidence -: 3 :- when he has not produced the originals, which were supposed to be in his custody and has not even given any explanation as to why the originals could not be produced. 6. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 9th November, 2011. The Registry is directed to ensure that the record of the learned Rent Controller is sent back so as to reach well before the said date. (Deepak Gupta) Judge October 12, 2011 (rajni)