SRI CHAND GUPTA versus GULZAR SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 538 · Decided: 22-10-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, YOGESHWAR DAYAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SRI CHAND GUPTA 
v. 
GULZAR SINGH AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 22, 1991 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.). 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Se.ction 14(b }--Sub-letting-Eviction 
Petition-Eviction order by Rent Controller aiid Tribunaf-Order based on 
inadmissible evide11ce--Appraisal of evidence, inteiference with concu"ent 
C findings of fact and dismissal of Eviction .Petition by High Court held jus-
tified. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 18. 
Admission--Eviction proceedings--Admission by tenant's brother in 
D an affidavit before Income Tax Authorities as to exclusive possession held 
not binding on the tenant. 
The appellant-landlord filed an application under Section 14(1)(b) 
of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for ejectment of the respondents and 
the three courts concurrently. found that the respondent was the sole 
E tenant. Relying on an atlidavit filed by tenant's brother before Income Tax 
authorities in which he claimed exclusive possession as tenant, the Rent 
Controller and the Tribunal concluded that the admission made by the 
tenant's brother was binding on the tenant as a result of which sub-letting 
by tenant was proved and consequently allowed the landlord's eviction 
F 
G 
H 
petition. 
But the High Court dismissed the eviction petition by holding that 
since the admission made by tenant's brother was not binding on the 
tenant, the finding of sub-letting by tenant was vitiated in law because it 
was based on inadmissible evidence. 
In appeal to this court it was contended on behalf of the landlord 
that (i) the admission made by tenant's brother was binding on the tenant 
under section 18 of the Evidence Act; (ii) the High Court erred in 
interfering with the concurrent finding of fact. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
538 
.. 
S. C.GUPTAv. GULZARSINGH 
539 
HELD: 1. Section 18 of the Evidence Act postulates that statements · A 
made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom 
the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or 
impliedly authorised by him to make them, are admissions. Equally· 
statement made by a person who has any proprietary or pecuniary interest 
in the subject matter of the proceedings or persons having derivative 
interest make statements during the continuance of the interest also are 
admissions. [540 H, 541 A-B] 
2. In the instant case, admittedly, the respondent-tenant was not a 
party to the affidavit signed by bis brother. Therefore, the admission made 
by his brother that be is the tenant in exclusive possession of the demised C 
premises does not bind the respondent-tenant. Once it is found that 
respondent alone is the tenant, his brother cannot claim to have any 
pecuniary or derivative interest in the demised premises. He is not an . 
agent of his tenant-brother. Since the admission made by tenant's brother 
was inadmissible and not binding on the tenant, the High Court rightly 
held that the finding of sub-letting or parting with possession of the D 
premises in dispute was vitiated in law as it was primarily based 'on 
inadmissible evidence. Consequently, it was open to the High Court to 
re-examine and reappreciate the evidence on record. (541 8-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 849 of E 
1987. 
~ ¥-
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.1985 of the Delhi Jfigh 
Court in S.AO. (Second Appeal From Order) no. 295of1981. 
K.R. Nagaraja, R.S. Hegde and C.B. Nath Babu for the Appellant: 
M.L. Bhargava and Randhir Jain for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
The appellant landlord had filed an application under Sec. 14(i)(b) 
F 
of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the 'Act') for ejectment of G 
the respondents. All the three courts concurrently found that Guizar Singh 
was the sole tenant. The Rent Controller and the Tribunal found that he 
sublet the demised premises to Avtar Singh, his brother and therefore 
ordered ejectment. The High Court found that the tenant was in exclusive 
ppssession of the premises bearing No. W: Z. 258/4, Subash Bazar, N angal H 
540 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] SUPP. 1 S. C.R. 
A Raya, New Jail Road, New Delh~ and that he did not sublet the premises 
,. 
to Avtar Singh. On that premise the petition for ejectment was dismissed. 
Thus this appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution. 
Shri Nagaraja, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that 
the High Court has committed a gross error in interfer

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