KALA AND ANR. versus MADHO PARSHAD VAIDYA

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 27-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KALA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
MADHO PARSHAD VAIDYA 
AUGUST 27, 1998 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Rent and Eviction : 
Himachal Pradesh Urban Re11t Control Act, 1987 : 
S. 14(2)(ii)-Nmz-residential premises-Landlord seeki11g eviction of C 
tenant for sublettin[jRent Controller holding that subletting was not estab-
lished and tenant did not part with possession of premises-Appellate 
authority passing order of ejectment-Revision dismissed by High 
Cowt-Held, onus to prove subletting is on la11dlord a11d if he establishes 
pwting of possession i11 favo11r of a third party, onus would shift to tenant to D 
explain-Si11ce landlord did not discharge the i11itial burden and the tenant 
eiplained how the other perso11 had pe1111issive possession of shop as its 
manage1; plea of subletting was not established-Appellate autholity com-
mitted an el1"or and the High Cmut allowed to pe1petuate the same-To 
pe1petuate an ennr is no virtue but to rectify it is the ~all of judicial con-
E 
science-High Cowt failed to c01Tect the obvious e1Tor committed by appellate 
autlwrity--Orders of High Cowt and appellate a11th01ity set aside a11d order 
of Rent Controller restored. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 997 of 
1997. 
·From the Judgment and Order dated. 19.9.96 of the Himachal 
Pradesh High Court in C.R. No. 14 of 1989. 
F 
G.L. Sanghi, P.R. Behl and M.A. Chinnasamy for the appellants. 
G 
S.K. Puri and Arun K. Sinha for the Respondent: 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This is a tenant's appeal by special leave. Respondent-landlord filed H 
149 
150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A an eviction petition against the appellants under section 14 of the Himachal 
Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter 'the Act') seeking 
eviction of the tenant from a shop situate in Moti Bazar, Muhalla Suhra, 
Mandi Town, H.P. According to the allegations made in the eviction 
petition the demised premises had been let out to Shri Hira Lal Sehgal, 
B husband of appellant No.l. Shri Hira Lal Sehgal, died on 23rd February, 
1983 and appellant No. 1 became the statutory tenant of the premises on 
his death. It was alleged that appellant No.1 thereafter sublet the premises 
to appellant No.2, Ravinder Kapur and that in the demised premises 
business was being run by appellant No. 2 though for "the advantage of 
both the appellants". The appellants filed a joint reply to the eviction 
C petition and denied sub-letting. It was maintained that appellant No.2 who 
is the son of the sister of late Shri Hira Lal Sehgal had been brought up 
by late Shri Hira Lal Sehgal and that appellant No.2 was helping late Shri 
Hira Lal Sehgal in running his business at the demised shop till his death 
in 1983 and that after his death, appellant No. 2 was helping appellant No.1 
D and managing her business 'for and on her behalf. The trial court after 
framing issues and recording evidence of the parties vide judgment and 
order dated 20th March, 1986 dismissed the eviction petition and held that 
the landlord had failed to prove that appellant No.1 had at any stage parted 
with the possession of the disputed premises after the death of her husband 
E or that she had sublet the same to appellant No.2. It was found, as a fact, 
that appellant No.2 was working in his capacity as a Manager for rendering 
assistance to run the business to appellant No.l. Aggrieved by the order of 
the trial court, the landlord-respondent filed an appeal before the appellate 
authority under the Act. 
F 
On 18th January, 1989, the appeal was accepted and the order of the 
Rent Controller was set aside. Ejectment of the appellants was ordered. 
The order of the appellate authority was challenged by the appellants 
through a civil revision petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. A 
G learned Single Judge of the High Court on 19th September, 1996, dismissed 
the revision petition thereby confirming the order of the appellate 
authority. Hence this appeal by special leave. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 
H record. 
KALAv. M.P.VAIDYA 
151 
For what follows, the appellate authority committed an error not only A 
in the appreciation of evidence but also by mis-reading the evidence and 
assuming the existence of certain facts which were neither alleged nor 
proved. The High Court also fell into a similar error. 
Section 14(2)(ii) of the Act provides that a landlord may evict his 
tenant by applying to t

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