RAKESH WADHAWAN AND ORS. versus M/S. JAGDAMBA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 468 · Decided: 26-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAKESH WADHA WAN AND ORS. 
v. 
MIS. JAGDAMBA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND ORS. 
APRIL 26, 2002 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, I 949 (E.P. U.R.R. Act): Section 
C 13(2)(i) and its proviso. 
Eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent-Proof of rate of 
rent-Tenants plea that rent recited in lease deed was not acted upon and 
hence rent not payable at that rate-Held, Deed of lease and payment of rent 
D through Cheque at an agreed rent for a certain period are enough to overrule 
the plea of tenants. 
'Assessed by Controller' qualifies the entries preceding expression 
-1 
Controller has to make assessment of not only the cost of application but also 
of arrears of rent and interest on such arrears and pass an interim order-
E If the amount deposited is short, the Controller may afford opportunity to 
tenant to tender the deficit amount within a reasonable time. 
Preamble and Section I 3(2)(i) and its proviso-Lacunae in the provision 
of the E.P.JJ.R.R. Act-Proving advantageous for unscrupulous litigants and 
creating obstacles in its smooth functioning-Object sought to be achieved 
F has been frustrated-Need to revamp emphasized 
-<t-
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Legislative provision-Ambiguity in-Susceptible to two meanings-:-
Resolving of-An obligation is cast on the Court to interpret it in such a 
G manner as to make it workable in conformity with object of the enactment and 
in conformity with other similar legislations or by devising the procedure 
without altering structure so that substantive law is meaningfully implemented. 
Evidence Act, I 872: 
H 
Sections I 7 and 2 I: 
468 
--
-
... 
--
-
RAKESH WADHAWAN v.IAGDAMBA INDUSTRIAL CORPN. 
469 
Admission-Evidential value-Admission is a piece of evidence which A 
does not conclusively bind a party unless it amounts to estoppel-Mere failure 
to object a wrong averment as to rate where it was not a point in issue, 
inference that rate of rent other than the rent agreed upon cannot be drawn-
E.P. U.R.R. Act. 
Respondent-tenants were in possession of suit premises under an B 
agreement from the then owners/landlords at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000 p.m. 
excluding water and electricity charges. Tenants defaulted in payment of rent . 
Hence eviction petition was filed by the landlord. In the meanwhile, there was 
litigation between the family members oflandlords in the Civil Court Tenants 
had deposited before the Rent Controller arrears of rent@ Rs. 1,800 p.m. in C 
terms of interim order passed by the Civil Court Tenants, in the written 
statement, submitted that agreed rent@ Rs. 2,000 p.m. was never acted upon 
and real monthly rent was Rs. 1,800 p.m. only. The rent Controller held that 
the amount tendered by the tenants towards arrears of rent was short and 
thus invalid. Accordingly, he passed eviction order. Aggrieved, tenants 
preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority D 
reversed the findings of the Rent Controller holding the rent to be Rs. 1,800 
p.m. at which rate arrears of rent had already been cleared by the tenants, 
and the tenants were not liable to be evicted. Landlord preferred Civil Revision 
Petition which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appea~ the Court 
E 
HELD: I.I. No reason has been assigned to show as to why the parties 
would have arrived at an agreed rate of rent of Rs. 2,000 p.m. and yet chosen 
not to act upon it The subsequent conduct of the parties belies the plea taken 
by the tenants that rate of rent so appointed was not intended to be acted 
upon. [475-H; 476-A] 
F 
1.2. The written statement filed in the civil suit by the landlord-plaintiff 
did not contain any admission as to the amount of rent as such; there was a 
mere failure to object In that suit, rent payable by the tenants was not a 
subject matter of controversy but it was a side issue. Admission is only a piece G 
of evidence and can be explained; it does not conclusively bind a party unless 
it amounts to an estoppel. Value of an admission has to be determined by 
keeping in view the circumstances in which it was made and to whom. A mere 
failure to object (about a wrong averment) cannot be placed on a footing 
higher than an admission. Admission as to rate of rent contained in the rent 
note and as evidenced by payment of rent at that rate by cheques by the H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 3 S.C

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