Singh Vs. Surjit Kumar @ Jit & Anr  INSC 636 (1 May 1996)
Reddy, B.P. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Majmudar S.B. (J) K. Venkataswami J.
1996 AIR 1619 1996 SCC (4) 33 JT 1996 (4) 701 1996 SCALE (4)127
first appellant is recorded to be dead. His LRs. are prosecuting this appeal.
The deceased appellant filed an ejectment application against the respondents
herein on the grounds that the first respondent has sublet the suit premises to
the second respondent without a written consent; that the suit house is in
dilapidated condition and therefore, unfit and unsafe for human habitation;
that the hose was required for his personal use and occupation after
reconstruction thereof and that the respondent had not paid the rent since may,
1985 onwards. The first respondent remained ex-parte. The second respondent
opposed vehemently the ejectment application. The contention of the second
respondent was that he was the direst tenant and the grounds in support of ejectment
application were wholly untenable and the application itself was liable to be
dismissed. The learned Rent Controller accepting the case of the second
respondent dismissed the ejectment application on appeal by the deceased first
appellant. the Appellate Authority also concurred with the Rent Controller and
consequently dismissed the appeal. On further revision, the High Court
dismissed the revision in limine. Hence the present appeal by special leave has
been preferred by the landlord.
the Special Leave Petition No. 23300/95 came up for orders on 30.10.1995, this
Court passed the following Order :- "Mr. D.V. Sehgal, learned Sr. Advocate
for the petitioner says that Gurdev and his wife both have retired form service
have taken a decision to come back to India and reside in the house.
in view this subsequent development, issue notice returnable in 12 weeks. Dasti
process in addition." As noticed at the beginning , the first appellant
died after filing the Special Leave petition. The application for substitution
was allowed. On the basis of subsequent event. the widow of the deceased first
appellant has stated that after the deceased first appellant has stated that
after the death of her husband she has "permanently back to India and needs the house in question for
her personal residence".
normal circumstances in view of the settled position of law that subsequent
events have to be taken note of, we would have allowed the ejectment
application accepting the statement of the second appellant (widow of the first
appellant by stating as follows:
widow Smt. Surjit Kaur came to India for a
few days to perform the last rites of her deceased husband/petitioner and had
gone back and this opportunity she chose to file the present false
affidavits." Further, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent in his written submissions has raised the following subjection :-
"That even if it is presumed that new facts have been placed on record,
which is very much denied, but by no stretch of imagination , it has been laid
by any Court that new facts can be assumed to be correct without trial. The LRs
or the widow have to prove the new facts before the trial court." It is
also objected to on the ground that the LRs and or the widow have to prove and
satisfy the ingredients of law viz. Sec. 13(3)(a)(1)(b) of the Punjab Rent
circumstances, we feel that the end of justice will be met if the case is
remanded back to the Appellate Authority to enable the LRs. of the first
appellant to establish their claim for ejectment under present circumstances in
the light of the above said provision of law.
the orders of the High Court and the Appellate Authority will restore on its
file the Rend Appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law. It will be
open to the Appellate Authority to permit the parties to fill additional
pleadings and adduce oral evidence.
appeal is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.