LexAHMEDSAHEB (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus SAYED ISMAIL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 6 S.C.R. 984 AHMEDSAHEB (D) BY LRS. & ORS. v. SAYED ISMAIL (Civil Appeal Nos. 5316-5318 of 2012 etc.) JULY 19, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction - Suits for recovery of arrears C - Decreed by trial and first appellate cburt - In second appeal High Court non-suited the land-lord on the ground that the rent-deed was not registered and _hence not admissible in evidence - On appeal, held: Since the relationship of land- lord and tenant was .established, and the tenant had admitted D the default, the /and-lord could not have been non-suited on the sole ground that ren- deed was not admissible in evidence - Admission of a party is the best evidence and does not need any corroboration - In view of second para of s. 107 of TP Act, status of parties on the basis of undisputed facts as land-lord E and tenant can always be accepted and the rights of the parties can be worked out on that basis - Decree modified as regards the rent and the total amount due - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s. 107 - Registration Act, 1908 - Evidence - Admission. F Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 - Eviction petition - On the ground that suit for recovery of rent was decreed, and statutory period of six months was over - Petition decided ex-parte and allowed directing eviction - Order confirmed by first appellate court - G In Revision, High Court remitted the matter to Rent Controller to decide the matter afresh - On appeal, held: Since the application has been dismissed by Rent Controller after remission, the appeal become infructuous and hence dismissed. H 984 AHMEDSAHEB (D) BY LRS. & ORS. v. SAYED ISMAIL Civil Appeal Nos. 5316-53143 of 2012: 985 The appellants filed civil suits in the years 1974, 1977 and 1980 against the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from October 1971 to November 1980. Trial court d.ecreed the suit, and the same was confirmed by the first appellate Court. In second appeal, High .Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the courts below, on the ground that the rent deed marked as exhibit 69 cannot be legally accepted in evidence as the same was not registered. in the present appeals, the appellants contended that even if the rent deed was not registered, it can be relied upon for the collateral purpose of ascertaining the rent and as to whether the tenant was liable to pay such rent. SLP (C) No. 23457/2001: A B c D fhe petitioners (who were also the appellants in CA Nos. 5316-5318 of 2012) filed petition u/s. 15 of Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 for eviction of the respondent-tenants (the respondent in CA E Nos. 5316-5318 of 2012), on the ground that since the petition for recovery of rent was decreed; and that the statutory period of 6 months was over, the tenant was liable to be evicted. The case was decided ex-parte by the Rent Controller, allowing ttie petition. Appellate court F declined to interfere with the order of Rent Controller. In revision, High directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the tenant and to allow him to place on record his Written Statement and also as'ked the land-lords to comply with the requirements of s. 15(2)(i) of the Act. G Thus, setting aside the orders of courts below, remitted the matter back to Rent Controller. Hence the present petition. In the petition to this Court, it was brought to the H 986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A notice of the Court that after the remittal, the Rent Controller had dismissed the application and appeal against the order was pending before appellate court. Allowing the appeal Nos. 5316-5318 of 2012 and B dismissing SLP (C) No. 23457 of 2001 as infructuous, the Court c HELD: Civil Appeal Nos. 5316-5318 of 2012: 1.1 The High Court ought to have upheld the decree for payment of arrears of rent by either directing the trial Court to calculate the actual amount payable by respondent or by modifying the decree to that extent. 0 [Para 12] [994-F] Anthony v. K. C. lttoop and Sons and Ors. 2000 (6) SCC 394: 2000 (1)Suppl. SCR 645 - relied on. 1.2. The appellants could not have been non-suited E solely on the ground that Exhibit-69 was not admissible in evidence. Admission of a party in the proceedings either in the pleadings or oral is the best evidence and the same does not need any further corrobor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.