ACT:

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

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

fide requirement of building--Jurisdiction of

appellate authority to admit additional evidence.

Statutory interpretation--Rent Act--beneficial

legislation--Whether it should be read reasonably and justly.

HEADNOTE:

On 11th October 1971, the respondent-landlord purchased a house in the same district. The appellant was a tenant since 2.10.1971 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-landlord filed an appeal before the appellate authority alongwith an application for adducing additional evidence. The Appellate Authority allowed the said application, recorded the additional evidence and allowed the appeal, holding that: (i) the need of the respondent-landlord for the residential building of which he was the purchaser (fide 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. 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 authority shall decide the appeal. Therefore, the appellate authority has by express provision jurisdiction to admit additional evidence. [520E]

State of Kerala V.K.M. Charia Abdullah & Co., [1965] 1 S.C.R. 601, relied upon.

It was submitted on behalf of the appellant was a registered document and recited that vacant possession had been given. The document stated 'Kabza Khal makan ka dia hai'. It was asserted that it meant that vacant possession in fact had been given. The oral evidence adduced before the Rent Controller indicated otherwise. The expression 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 possession has been handed over to the purchaser. Therefore, evidence was permissible 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]

1. In the instant case, admission of additional evidence was warranted by the facts and the pleadings. By such admission of evidence, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. 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 the Rent Controller, the appellate authority in its order had not specifically referred to the paragraphs of the order of the Rent Controller but that does not mean nor does it indicate that the appellate authority had not considered evidence adduced before the Rent Controller. The criticism that there was no consideration of the evidence adduced before the Rent Controller by the appellate authority is, therefore, not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. [521B - E]

2. Though the Rent Act is a beneficial legislation, it must be put to such an interpretation as would not impose upon the right to hold the property then it would expose itself to the vice of unconstitutionality. Such an approach in