1. Eviction petition under Section 21(l)(h) of Karnataka Rent Control Act for bona fide use — Revision petition — Application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1060
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : K.Venkataswami
Badami Devi
Versus
Ambuja Raghavan
Case No. : 5085 of 1998
Date of Decision : 10/9/98
Important Points
The failure of a court to consider and discuss materials placed before it in an application to produce additional evidence and subsequent events during a revision proceeding vitiates the order and necessitates a remand for fresh consideration.
Subject
Civil Law - Rent Control
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rent Control Act - Sections 21(l)(h) and 50 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Eviction on ground of bona fide use - Application for additional evidence and subsequent events - High Court dismissed applications without discussing materials placed before it - Such failure vitiates the order - Additional evidence and subsequent events must be considered by the trial court. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
An eviction petition based on bona fide use and occupation was allowed by the trial court. In the subsequent revision petition, the tenants sought permission to produce additional evidence and bring subsequent events to the notice of the court. The High Court dismissed both the revision and the applications for additional evidence, stating that no prima facie material was filed, without discussing the materials provided.
Findings of Court:
The High Court should have allowed the petitions to produce additional evidence and bring on record subsequent events. The failure to do so vitiates the order under appeal.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of applications to produce additional evidence and subsequent events without discussing the materials placed before the court was legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: When vital subsequent events and additional evidence are brought to the notice of the court in a revision petition, the court must appreciate the materials placed before it; failure to do so leads to the vitiation of the order.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Facts of the case:
An eviction petition based on bona fide use and occupation was allowed by the trial court. In the subsequent revision petition, the tenants sought permission to produce additional evidence and bring subsequent events to the notice of the court. The High Court dismissed both the revision and the applications for additional evidence, stating that no prima facie material was filed, without discussing the materials provided.
Findings of Court:
The High Court should have allowed the petitions to produce additional evidence and bring on record subsequent events. The failure to do so vitiates the order under appeal.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of applications to produce additional evidence and subsequent events without discussing the materials placed before the court was legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: When vital subsequent events and additional evidence are brought to the notice of the court in a revision petition, the court must appreciate the materials placed before it; failure to do so leads to the vitiation of the order.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants sought permission to produce additional evidence and bring subsequent events to the High Court's notice during revision proceedings. (Para 3 )
3. High Court erred by dismissing applications for additional evidence without discussing the materials placed before it, thereby vitiating the eviction order. (Para 3 )
4. Dismissal of applications to produce additional evidence and subsequent events without considering the materials placed on record vitiates the resulting order. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court and trial court orders set aside — Matter remanded to Small Causes Judge for disposal with permission to produce additional evidence. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Can additional evidence and subsequent events be produced during revision proceedings?
Yes, the court may allow applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to produce additional evidence and bring subsequent events on record to ensure a just decision. (Para 3 )
7. Is a court required to discuss the materials provided when dismissing an application for additional evidence?
Yes, the court must appreciate the materials placed before it; dismissing such applications without discussing the evidence can vitiate the final order. (Para 3 )
8. What is the remedy when a court dismisses a revision and an application for additional evidence without considering the materials?
The order may be set aside, and the matter remanded to the trial court to consider the additional evidence and subsequent events. (Para 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) HEARD elaborately learned counsel on both the sides.
(3) THE respondent filed an application under Section 21(l)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the appellants on the ground of bona fide use and occupation of the suit house. The learned Small Causes Judge, after hearing the case, allowed the eviction petition. Against that order of eviction, only revision under Section 50 is provided in the Act. Accordingly, the appellants preferred a revision petition to the Karnataka High Court. Pending revision, the appellants preferred several separate applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, seeking permission to produce additional evidence and to bring to the notice of the High Court certain vital subsequent events. Unfortunately, the High Court while dismissing the revision, has dismissed the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, by stating that no prima facie material has been filed to appreciate the applications without discussing the materials placed before it. On a perusal of the materials placed before the High Court, we are of the view that the High Court should have allowed the petitions to produce additional evidence and to bring on record the subsequent events. The failure to do so, in our view, on the facts of this case, vitiates the order under appeal. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 16-4-1998 of the High Court. We are also of the view that the additional evidence now produced and the subsequent events sought to be brought on record must be considered by the learned Small Causes Judge. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment dated 22-7-1994 in HRC No. 100 of 1990 on the file of XIIIth Additional Small Causes Judge. Consequently, we restore HRC No. 100 of 1990 on the file of XIIIth Additional Small Causes Judge. We permit the appellants tenant to produce additional evidence and also to bring on record subsequent events. The learned Small Causes Judge will also give liberty to the landlord to file rebuttal evidence, if any, to the new material produced by the appellants herein. As the matter is an old one, we direct the learned XIIIth Additional Small Causes Judge to expeditiously dispose of HRC No. 100 of 1990, preferably within six months from today.
(4) THE appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
