http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 9

PETITIONER:

YUDHISHTER

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

ASHOK KUMAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/12/1986

BENCH:

MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

BENCH:

MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:

1987 AIR 558 1987 SCR (1) 516

1987 SCC (1) 204 JT 1986 1021

1986 SCALE (2)1044

CITATOR INFO :

RF 1991 SC1654 (27)

ACT:

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973,

s. 13(3)(a)i) and 15(4)--Application for ejectment--Bona

fide requirement of building by landlord--Jurisdiction of

appellate authority to admit additional evidence.

Statutory interpretation--Rent Act-A beneficial

legislation-Whether it should be read reasonably and justly.

HEADNOTE:

On 11th October 1971, the respondent-landlord purchased

a house in which the appellant was a tenant since 1962. He

had also purchased another house in the same district on

10.7.1971 but sold away the same on 7.8.72 as it was not

vacant. On 14th January, 1974, the respondent-landlord filed

an eviction petition against the appellant-tenant inter alia

on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The Rent

Controller rejected the petition holding that all the ingre-

dients of s. 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of

Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 had not been proved.

Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the

respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority

alongwith an application for adducing additional evidence.

The Appellate Authority allowed the said application, re-

corded the additional evidence and allowed the appeal,

holding that: (i) the need of the respondent was bona fide;

(ii) that the vacant possession of the house purchased on

the 10th July 1971 by the respondent-landlord had not been

obtained; and (iii) that the sale of the aforesaid house by

the respondent was not a benami transaction. The High Court

dismissed the revision petition of the appellant in limine.

Dismissing the appeal by the appellant to this Court,

HELD: 1.1 Section 15 of the Act deals with the powers of

the appellate and revisional authorities under the Act.

Sub-s. (4) of the said section specifically provides that,

if necessary, after further enquiry as it thinks fit. either

personally or through the Controller, the appellate authori-

ty shall decide the appeal. Therefore, the appellate author-

ity has by express provision jurisdiction to admit addition-

al evidence. [520E]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 9

517

State of Kerala v.K.M. Charia Abdullah & Co., [1965] 1

S.C.R. 601, relied upon.

1.2 The document relied upon on behalf of the appellant

was a registered document and recited that vacant possession

has been given. The document stated ’Kabza Khali makan ka

dia hai’. It was asserted that it meant that a vacant pos-

session, in fact, had been given. The oral evidence adduced

on behalf of the respondent indicated otherwise. The expres-

sion indicated above does not mean that actual physical

vacant possession has been handed over to the purchaser. In

a document of this type it can equally mean that the legal

right of the possession not the actual possession has been

handed over to the purchaser. Therefore, evidence was per-

missible to explain what it meant, and there was ample

justification on the evidence on record to come to the

conclusion that it was ’not physically vacant’. [524F --

525A]

In the instant case, admission of additional evidence

was warranted by the facts and the pleadings. By such admis-

sion of evidence, no prejudice has been caused to the appel-

lant. Indeed reading of the order of the appellate authority

makes it abundantly clear that the appellate authority had

adverted to all the facts recorded by the Rent Controller

and further considered the additional evidence. It is true

that in referring to the findings of th