Sri Chand
Gupta Vs. Gulzar Singh & Anr [1991] INSC 267 (22 October 1991)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K. Yogeshwar Dayal (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 123 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 538 1992 SCC (1) 143 JT 1991 (6) 532 1991 SCALE
(2)949
ACT:
Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958. Section
14(b)--Sub-letting--Eviction Petition--Eviction order by Rent Controller and
Tribunal---Order based on inadmissible evidence---Appraisal of evidence,
interference with concur- rent findings of fact and dismissal of Eviction
Petition by High Coutr hem justified.
Indian
Evidence Act, 1872: Section 18.
Admission--Eviction
proceedings---Admission by tenant's brother in an affidavit before Income Tax
Authorities as to exclusive possession held not binding on the tenant.
HEAD NOTE:
The
appellant-landlord filed an application under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 for ejectment of the respondents and the three courts
concurrently found that the respondent was the sole tenant. Relying on an
affidavit filed by tenant's brother before Income Tax au- thorities in which he
claimed exclusive possession as ten- ant, the Rent Controller and the Tribunal
concluded that the admission made by the tenant's brother was binding on the
tenant as a result of which sub-letting by tenant was proved and consequently
allowed the landlord's eviction petition.
But
the High Court dismissed the eviction petition by holding that since the
admission made by tenant's brother was not binding on the tenant, the finding
of sub-letting by tenant was vitiated in law because it was based on inadmis- sible
evidence.
In
appeal to this court it was contended on behalf of the landlord that (i) the
admission made by tenant's brother was binding on the tenant under section 18
of the Evidence Act; (ii) the High Court erred in interfering with the
concurrent finding of fact.
Dismissing
the appeal, this Court, 538 539
HELD:
1. Section 18 of the Evidence Act postulates that statements made by a party to
the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under
the circum- stances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorised by him to
make them, are admissions. Equally statement made by a person who has any
proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceedings or
persons having derivative interest make statements during the continuance of
the interest also are admissions. [540 H, 541 A-B]
2. In
the instant case, admittedly, the respondent- tenant was not a party to the
affidavit signed by his broth- er. Therefore, the admission made by his brother
that he is the tenant in exclusive possession of the demised premises does not
bind the respondent-tenant. Once it is found that respondent alone is the
tenant, his brother cannot claim to have any pecuniary or derivative interest
in the demised premises. He is not an agent of his tenant-brother. Since the
admission made by tenant's brother was inadmissible and not binding on the
tenant, the High Court rightly held that the finding of sob-letting or parting
with possession of the premises in dispute was vitiated in law as it was
primarily based on inadmissible evidence. Consequently, it was open to the High
Court to re-examine and reappreciate the evidence on record. [541 B-E]
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 849 of 1987.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.1985 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O.
('Second Appeal From Order) no. 295 of 1981.
K.R. Nagaraja,
R.S. Hegde and C.B. Nath Babu for the Appel- lant.
M .L. Bhargava
and Randbit Jain for the Respondents.
The
following Order of the Court was delivered:
The
appellant landlord had filed an application under Sec. 14(1)(b) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the 'Act') for ejectment of the respondents.
All the three courts concurrently found that Gulzar Singh was the sole tenant.
The Rent Controller and the Tribunal found that he sublet the demised premises
to Avtar Singh, his brother and therefore ordered ejectment. The High Court
found that the tenant was in exclusive possession of the premises bearing No.
W.Z. 258/4, Subash Bazar, Nangal 540 Raya, New Jail Road, New
Delhi, and that he
did not sublet the premises to Avtar Singh. On that premise the petition for ejectment
was dismissed. Thus this appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the
Constitution.
Shri Nagaraja,
learned counsel for the appellant has con- tended that the High Court has
committed a gross error in interfering with the concurrent finding of fact
recorded by the Addl. Rent Controller and the Rent control Tribunal that the
tenant, Gulzar Singh has sublet the premises in question to his brother, Avtar
Singh and that it is not open to the High court to interfere with the
concurrent finding of fact.
He
placed reliance on Sec. 18 of the Evidence Act and said that in an affidavit
filed by Avtar singh before Income-Tax Authorities he claimed exclusive
possession as a tenant and that, therefore, the admission made by him would be
binding on Gulzar Singh. The Addl. Rent Controller and the Rent Control
Tribunal relying upon this admission of Avtar Singh and other oral evidence
concluded that Avtar Singh alone was in exclusive possession and that,
therefore, subletting was proved as a fact. We find no substance in the
contention.
Section
18 of the Evidence Act. reads as under:- "18. Admission by party to
proceeding or his agent; by suitor in representative character; by party
interested in subject-matter by person from whom interest derived. - State- ments
made by a party to the proceedings, or by an agent to any such party, whom the
court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorised
by him to made them, are admissions.
Statements
made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative character, are not
admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that
character.
Statements
made by - (1) persons whom have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the
subject matter of the proceeding and who make the statement in their character
of persons so interested, or (2) persons from whom the parties to the suit have
derived their interest in the subject matter of the suit, are admissions, if
they are made during the continuance of the inter- est of the persons making
the statement." Section 18 postulates that statements made by a party to
the 541 proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards,
under the circumstances of the. case, as expressly or impliedly authorised by
him to make them, are admissions.
Equally
statement made by a person who has an proprietary or pecuniary interest in the
subject matter of the proceedings or persons having derivative interest make
statements during the continuance of the interest also are admissions. In this
case, admittedly, Gulzar Singh was not a party to the .affidavit signed by Avtar
Singh. Therefore, the admis- sion made by Avtar Singh that he is the tenant m
exclusive possession of the demised premises does not bind Gulzar Singh. In
view of the plea and stand of the appellant, Avtar Singh cannot claim to have
any pecuniary interest or any joint interest alongwith Gulzar Singh in the
demised prem- ises. Once it is found that Gulzar Singh alone is the ten- ant,
as admittedly pleaded by the appellant, Avtar Singh cannot claim to have any
pecuniary or derivative interest in the demised premises. He is not an agent of
Gulzar Singh.
Under
those circumstances, as rightly found by the High Court, that the admission
made by Avtar Singh in the affida- vit is inadmissible and does not bind Gulzar
Singh. Once that admission is excluded from consideration, there is no other
evidence worth accepting to conclude that Avtar Singh was in exclusive
possession as a tenant. The High Court rightly held that the finding of
subletting or parting with possession of the premises in dispute was vitiated
in law as it was primarily based on inadmissible evidence. Having found the
finding vitiated, it was open to the High Court to re-examine and reappreciate
the evidence on record. On reappraisal it disbelieved-the oral evidence. We do
not find any error in such reappraisal. It is then sought to be contended that Gulzar
Singh had other business and it im- plies that he is not in exclusive
possession of the demised premises. We find no force in the contention. It may
be that Gulzar Singh had other business but that does not lead to the
conclusion that Gulzar singh is not in exclusive posses- sion of the demised
premises as tenant or that he sublet the premises to Avtar Singh.
Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed, but in the circum- stances, without costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal dismissed.
Back