GURDIAL SINGH AND ORS. versus RAJ KUMAR ANEJA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 817 · Decided: 04-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
.. 
--
. -
> 
.. 
GURDIAL SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
RAJ KUMAR ANEJA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 4, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: 
Section l 3(2)(ii)(a)-Eviction-Sub-/etting-Absence of written 
consent-Tenant inducted sub-tenant on oral consent of the landlord-Validity 
of-Held: When the law speaks of written consent "oral consent" cannot be 
substituted in its place-Hence, ground of eviction made out. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Section 9 l and 92-Deed of lease-Plea that the transaction described 
in the lease deed was sham or fictitious not intended to be acted upon and 
was camouflage of rent control legislation, not excluded 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 6 Rule 17-Pleadings-Amendment of-Procedure-Held: 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Amendment applicant must set out specifically what is proposed to be omitted 
from or altered or substituted in or added to the original pleadings-Stating 
reasons for the proposed amendment is desirable-On prayer for amendment F 
being allowed the original pleadings should incorporate the changes in such 
manner as to clearly indicate shift on stand from original pleading made by 
amendment-Right of opposite party to file consequential amendments-A new 
plea in the garb of consequential amendment shall not be permitted 
Words and Phrases: 
G 
"Consequential amendment"-Meaning of-In the context of 0.6. R.17 
:I" 
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
The appellants executed a registered Deed of Lease between 
themselves and respondent No. 3 whereby respondent No. 3 was inducted H 
817 
818 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 1 S.C.R. 
A as a tenant under the appellants in respect of the suit premises. Respondent 
No. 3 inducted respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as sub-tenants in the suit premises. 
The appellant-landlords filed an eviction petition under Seetion 
13(2)(ii)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the 
ground that respondent No. 3 inducted respondents 1 and 2 as sub-tenants 
B without the written consent of the appellants. 
Respondent 1 and 2, after filing separate written statements, sought 
for amendment in their written statements. It was stated in the application 
for amendment that respondent No. 3 was not a tenant under the 
C appellants but was only a rent collecting agent, that the registered Deed 
of Lease was a sham and a fraud on the Act. The Rent Controller rejected 
the prayer for amendment. However, the High Court allowed the prayer 
for amendment. 
The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition but the Appellate 
D Authority allowed it. However, the High Court held that sub-letting in the 
suit premises was with the oral consent of the appellants and allowed the 
eviction petition. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD : 1.1. It is true that in spite of the availability of a registered 
Deed of Lease executed between the appellants and respondent No. 3, 
respondent 1 and 2 are not debarred from taking a plea that the 
transaction between the appellants and respondent No. 3 was not what it 
apparently appears to be just by reading of the Lease Deed. Respondents 
1 and 2, by raising a plea which they have taken in the written statements, 
F are not proposing to put in issue and let in oral evidence of the terms of 
the Lease Deed. They are also not raising a plea or adducing oral evidence 
for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from 
the terms of the Lease Deed. They are not parties to the Lease Deed. 
Therefore, Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 are not attracted. 
G 
(825-H; 826-A-BI 
1.2. Respondents 1 and 2 are impeaching the outward validity of 
Lease Deed by submitting that what has been described on paper is not 
the real intention of the parties to do; the Lease Deed and the transaction 
spelled out by it was a sham or fictitious transaction not intended to be 
H acted upon, rather intended to overcome or avoid the effect of Rent control 
... 
GU!WIAL SINGH v. R.K. ANEJA 
819 
Legislation. It is permissible to take such a plea and lldduce evidence to A 
substantiate the same. The plea can be taken though the onus would lay 
on the shoulders of the party taking such a plea. To discharge the onus, 
direct evidence may or may not be available and it should be permissible 
to draw an inference from tell-tale circumstances. However, the inference 
to be drawn from the circumstances should be an irresistible one and not 
me

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.