LexJASPAL KAUR CHEEMA AND ANR. versus M/S INDUSTRIAL TRADE LINKS AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] ,6 S.C.R. 479 JASPAL KAUR CHEEMA AND ANR. A v. M/S INDUSTRIAL TRADE LINKS AND ORS. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8384-8386 of 2017) B JULY 03, 2017 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.J c East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - s.13 - Eviction sought on the ground of personal necessity - After conclusion of evidence of landlord-appellants, respondents led their evidence - At this stage, respondents moved an application seeking amendment of the written statement for adding the plea that appellants were not the owners of the premises - Rent Controller D dismissed application - High Court reversed the order of Rent Controller and allowed the amendment - On appeal, held: It is not disputed by the respondents that they were put in possession of the premises as tenants by the appellants - In the circumstances, they cannot dispute the title of the landlord in respect of the said premises E - The said plea was not raised by them in the written statement - They cannot be permitted to introduce the said plea by way of amendment, that too, at this belated stage - s.116 of Evidence Act also puts an embargo on a tenant during continuance of his tenancy to deny the title of his landlord - Rent Controller was, therefore, right in rejecting the amendment application - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.116 - Rent control and eviction. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.8, r.3 - Jn terms of Or.8 r.3, a defendant is required to deny or dispute the statements made F in the plaint categorically, as evasive denial would amount to an G admission of the allegation made in the plaint in terms ofOr.8, r.5- In other words, the written statement must specifically deal with each of the allegations of fact made in the plaint - The failure to make specific denial amounts to an admission. 479 H 480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the respondents were put in possession of the premises by the appellants under the lease deed. The appellants in paragraph (1) of the eviction petition averred that they are the owners and landlords of the premises B and that the premises was let out to the respondents through a lease deed. In their written statement, the respondents have not raised a specific plea denying or disputing the ownership of the appellants. However, there is a general denial of the averments made in paragraph (1) of the eviction petition. [Para 7] [483-G] C 2. In terms of Order 8 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a defendant is required to deny or dispute the statements made in the plaint categorically, as evasive denial would amount to an admission of the allegation made in the plaint in terms of Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code. In other words, the D written statement must specifically deal with each of the allegations of fact made in the plaint. The failure to make specific denial amounts to an admission. [Para 8] [484-A-B] E F G H Badal and Company v. East India Trading Company [1964] 4 SCR 19; Sushi! Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar (2003) 8 sec 673 : 120031 4 Suppl. scR 802; M. Venkataramana Hebbar (dead by LRs) v. M. Rajagopal Hebbar (2007) 6 SCC 401 : [2007] 4 SCR 941 - relied on. 3.1 Section 116 deals with estoppel of a tenant founded upon contract between the tenant and his landlord. It enumerates the principle of estoppel which is merely an extension of principle that no person is allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. The tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord's title. [Paras 10, 11] [484-E, G-H ; 485-A] Mt. Bi/as Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh & Ors. AIR 1915 Privy Council 96 - relied on. 3.2 The principle of estoppel arising from contract of tenancy is based upon the principle oflaw and justice that a tenant who could not have got possession but for a contract of tenancy admitting the right of the landlord, should not be allowed to put JASPAL KAUR CHEEMA AND ANR. v. M/S INDUSTRIAL 481 TRADE LINKS AND ORS. his landlord in some inequitable situation taking undue advantage A of the position that he got and any probable defect in the title of ·his landlord. [Para 12] [4S5-B-C] Estralla Rubber V. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. (2001) s sec 97: (2001) 3 Suppl. SCR 6S; Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC B 656 : [2011) 11 SCR S4S - held inapplicable. Bansraj Laltaprasad Mishra v. Stanley Parker Jones (2006)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.