KARAM SINGH SOBTI & ANR. versus SHRI PRATAP CHAND & ANR.

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 647 · Decided: 29-08-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

--
-
4 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
647 
referred to in els. (a), (b) or ( d) of sub-s. ( 1) 
in 
respect of which there was no charge against the ap-
pellant. 
We consider that the above argument of learned Coun-
sel for the appellant is corre~t and must be accepted." 
The appellant's Counsel is not in a position to submit 
that there is evidence on the record which would satisfy 
the Court that the accused has "proved the contrary", that 
is, that he had not committed the offence with which he 
was charged. 
We have therefore come 
to the conclusion that the 
facts proved in this case raise a presumption under s. 5(3) 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the appellant's 
conviction of the offence with which he was charged must 
be maintained on the basis of that presumption. In this 
view of the matter we do not propose to consider whether 
the High Court was right in basing its conclusion also 
on the other evidence adduced in the case to prove the 
actual payment of illegal gratification by the partners of 
the firm M/s. Ramdas Chhankanda Ram. 
Lastly, Mr. Lall prayed that the sentence be reduced. 
The sentence imposed on the appellant is one year's rigo· 
rous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Under s. 5(2) 
the minimum sentence has to be one year's imprisonment, 
subject to the proviso that the Court may for special reasons 
to be recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprison-
ment of less than one year. We are unable to see anything 
that would justify us in taking action under the proviso. 
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
KARAM SINGH SOBTI & ANR. 
v. 
SHRI PRATAP CHAND & ANR. 
(S. K. DAs, AcTING C. J., A. K. SARKAR AND M. HmAYA-
TULLAH, JJ.) 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958---Section 57, scope and effect 
of-Meaning of "shall have regard to the provisions of this Act" 
tn s. 57(2) first proviso-Delhi Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 
s. 35-Revisional furisdiction of High Court-Finding by lozve; 
appellate court that landlord acquiesced in subletting-Whether 
High Court could interfere on the ground of no evidence. 
1963 
S•ii•n Singh· 
v. 
The State of 
Punjab. 
DRS Gupta f. 
1963 
August 29 
1963 
Karam Singh 
Sobti & Anr. 
v. 
Shri Pratap 
Chand & Anr. 
648 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1%4] 
By s. 13 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 which 
can1c into force on June 9, 1952, courts 
were prohibited from 
directing eviction of a tenant at the suit of a landlord excepting in 
the cases inentioned in the proviso to it. 
Clause 
( c) of the 
proviso permitted ejectment where the "tenant without obtaining 
the consent of landlord has before the commencement of this Acr 
sub-let . ... the premises''. 
Relying on this clause the 
respondent 
landlord filed a suit against the appellant and respondent no. 2 
for their ejectment from a shop room let to the latter alleging that 
it had been sub-let to the appellant without his consent. 
The 
appellant resisted the suit on the ground that the respondent land-
lord had acquiesced in the sub-letting. 
The trial judge decreed 
the suit holding that the respondent landlord had not done so. The 
appellant alone appealed to the Additional Senior Sub-Judge who 
set aside the order of the trial Judge taking the view that the 
respondent landlord had acquiesced 
in 
the sub-letting. 
He 
also held that the 
sub-letting had commenced 
not 
later than 
NoYember 1950. The landlord moved the High Court in revision 
under s. 35 of the Act. 
While the matter was pending in the High Court, the Delhi 
Rent Control Act, 1958, came into force. Section 57 of the Act of 
1958, provided; 
"(1) The Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 
1952, in so far as it is applicable to the Union Territory of Delh~ 
is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and 
other proceedings under the said Act pending, at the comn1encement 
of this Act, before any court or other authority shall be continued 
and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, 
as if the said Act had continued in force and this Act had not been 
passed: Provided that in any such suit or proceeding for the fixa· 
tier: of standard rent or for the eviction of a tenant from any pre· 
niiscs to which s. 54 does not apply, the court or other authority shall 
ha\'e regard to the provisions of this Act: Provided further that 
the provisions for appeal under the said Act shall continue in force 
in respect of suits and proceedings disposed of thereunder." 
The High

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