YUDHISHTER versus ASHOK KUMAR

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 516 · Decided: 11-12-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
YUDHISHTER 
v. 
ASHOK KUMAR 
DECEMBER 11, 1986 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.) 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rem and Eviction) Act, 1973, s. 13(3Xa)(i) 
and 15(4)-Applicationfor ejectment--Bonafide requirement of building by 
landlord-Jurisdiction of appellate authority to admit additional evidence. 
C 
Statutory 
interpretation-Rent Act-A beneficial legislation-
Whether it should be read reasonably and justly. 
\ -
On 11th October 1971, the respondent-landlord purchased a house in 
-+ ~ 
which the appellant was a tenant since' 1962. He had also purchased another 
house in the same district on I0.7.197't but sold away the same on 7.8.72 as it 
D 
was not vacant. On 14th January, 1974, the respondent-landlord filed an 
eviction petition against the appellant·tenant inter a/ia on the ground of bona 
fide personal requirement. The Rent Controlier rejected the petition holding 
that all the ingredients of s.13(3)( a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent 
and Eviction) Act 1973 had not been prove,i. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Aggrieved by the order of the Hent Controller, the respondent filed an 
appeal before the Appellate Authorit:y alongwith an application for adducing 
additional evidence. The Appellate Authority allowed the said application, 
recorded the additional evidence and allowed the appeal, holding that: (i) the 
need of the respondent was bona fidle; (ii) that the vacant possession of the 
house purchased on the 10th July 11171 by the respondent-landlord had not 
been obtained; and (iii) that the sale of the aforesaid house by the respondent 
was not a benami transaction. The High Court dismissed the revision petition 
of the appellant in limine. 
Dismissing the appeal by the appellant to this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 Section 15 of the Act deals with the powers of the appellate 
and revisional authorities under the Act. Sub-s. (4) of the said section 
specifically provides that, if necessnry, after further enquiry as it thinks fit 
either personally or through the Controller, the appellate authority shall 
decide the appeal. Therefore, the appellate authority has by express provision 
jurisdiction to admit additional evidence. [ 520E] 
516 
-
YUDHISHTER v. ASHOK.KUMAR 
517 
State of Kera/av. K.M. Charia Abdullah & Co., [1965) 1S.C.R.601, A 
relied upon. 
1.2 The document relied upon on behalf of the appellant was a registered 
document and recited that vacant possession has been gi <en. The document 
stated 'Kabza Khali makan ka dia hai'. Ii was asserted that it meant that a 
vacant possession, in fact, had been given. The oral evidence adduced on. 
B . 
behalf of the respondent indicated otherwise. The expression indicated above 
does not mean that actual physical vacant possession bas been handed over to 
the purchaser. In a document of this type it can equally mean that the legal 
right of the possession not the actual possession has been handed over to the 
purchaser. Therefore, evidence was persmissible·to explain what it meant, and 
there was ample justification on the evidence on record to come to the 
C 
conclusion that it was 'not physically vacant'. [524F -
525A) · 
In the instant case, admission of additional evidence was warranted by 
the facts and the pleadings. By such admission of evidence, no prejudice has 
been caused to the appellant. Indeed reading of the order of the appellate 
authority makes it abundantly clear that the appellate authority had adverted 
D 
to all the facts recorded by the Rent Controller and further considered the 
additional. evidence. It is true that in referring to the findings of the Rent 
Controller, the appellate authority in its Order had not specifically referred to 
' the paragraphs of the order of the Rent Controller but that does not mean nor. 
does it indicate that the appellate authority had not considered evidence 
adduced before the Rent Controller. The criticism that there was no 
E 
consideration of the evidence adduced by the appellant before the Rent 
Controller by the appellate authority is, therefore, not justified in the facts and 
circumstances of the case. [5218 -
E) 
2. Though the Rent Act is a beneficial legislation, it must be read 
reasonably and justly. If more limitations are imposed upon the right to hold 
F 
the property then it would expose itself to the vice of unconstitutionality. Such 
an approach in interpretation of beneficial statutes is not warranted. It is true 
that one should iron out the creases and should take a creative approac

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