1986 (12) TMI 380 - SC - Indian Laws

Landlord's Requirement Upheld as Bona Fide, Benami Transaction Claims Rejected

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate authority's decision to admit additional evidence and found the landlord's requirement under section 13(3)(a)(i) of ... Bona fide requirement for landlord's occupation under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act - power of appellate authority to admit additional evidence and conduct further enquiry - effect of sale and vacant possession on disqualification under clause (i) of section 13(3)(a) - characterisation of ancestral joint family residence under Mitakshara and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - benami transaction allegation and evidentiary burden - reading of beneficial legislation to avoid unconstitutionalityPower of appellate authority to admit additional evidence and conduct further enquiry - Validity of admission and consideration of additional evidence by the appellate authority - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority has jurisdiction to admit additional evidence and to make such further enquiry as it thinks fit in order to decide the appeal fairly. The appellate order and the statutory scheme (expressly permitting further enquiry at appellate/revisional stage) justify admission of additional evidence where the facts and pleadings warrant it. In the present case the appellate authority adverted to evidence recorded by the Rent Controller, considered the additional evidence admitted before it, and gave the parties opportunity to test and examine that evidence; no prejudice was caused to the tenant by such admission. The appellate authority's not referring to specific paragraphs of the Rent Controller's order does not imply non-consideration of that evidence.Admission and consideration of additional evidence by the appellate authority upheld; no interference warranted.Bona fide requirement for landlord's occupation under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act - characterisation of ancestral joint family residence under Mitakshara and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Whether the landlord satisfied the requirement of bona fide need for occupation under clause (i) of sub section (3)(a) of section 13 - HELD THAT: - On appraisal of the evidence the appellate authority found that the ancestral house did not afford reasonable accommodation for the respondent's family. It was unnecessary to decide finally whether the respondent was a mere licensee or a co parcener because, even if his position in the ancestral house were assumed otherwise, the accommodation (including the chamber let out to a bank) remained insufficient to meet his reasonable and bona fide need. The court noted that the effect of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on Mitakshara coparcenary rights may limit treating such property as HUF property in the hands of the father in relation to his sons, and in any event the appellate authority's factual conclusion as to insufficiency of accommodation was supported by the record.The appellate authority was right in holding that the respondent satisfied the bona fide requirement for occupation; that finding is sustained.Effect of sale and vacant possession on disqualification under clause (i) of section 13(3)(a) - benami transaction allegation and evidentiary burden - reading of beneficial legislation to avoid unconstitutionality - Whether purchase and subsequent sale of another house (near Kabir Bhavan) or alleged benami character or alleged prior vacant possession disentitled the landlord from relief - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority found on evidence (including oral testimony and income tax/other records) that vacant physical possession of the Kabir Bhavan property had not been obtained and rejected the benami allegation. A registered recital that 'possession has been given' can denote legal right rather than physical vacant possession and is explainable by oral evidence. The sale of the Kabir Bhavan property before institution of the eviction suit did not disqualify the respondent from claiming relief where the sale occurred because the property was not in vacant possession and there was no proof of an intention to defeat the tenant's claim. To interpret the Rent Act so as to penalise sale or alienation absent such intent would risk an unreasonable reading of a beneficial statute and potential constitutional difficulty.Findings that the Kabir Bhavan property was not in physical vacant possession, that the sale did not amount to disqualification, and that the benami allegation was rejected are maintained.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellate authority's admission of additional evidence and its factual conclusions that the landlord had a bona fide need for occupation; the appellate decision and the High Court's refusal to interfere are affirmed and the parties bear their own costs. Issues Involved:1. Admission of additional evidence by the appellate authority.2. Consideration of evidence adduced by the appellant before the Rent Controller.3. Bona fide requirement of the landlord u/s 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.4. Alleged benami transaction and vacant possession of another house.Summary:1. Admission of Additional Evidence:The appellant contended that the appellate authority erred in admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court held that the appellate authority has the same jurisdiction as the trial court to admit additional evidence if warranted by the facts and circumstances. Section 15(4) of the Act specifically provides that the appellate authority can admit additional evidence if necessary. The Court found that no prejudice was caused to the appellant by the admission of such evidence.2. Consideration of Evidence Adduced by the Appellant:The appellant argued that the appellate authority did not consider the evidence presented before the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that the appellate authority had considered all the facts recorded by the Rent Controller and the additional evidence. The appellate authority was conscious of the evidence adduced by the appellant before the Rent Controller.3. Bona Fide Requirement of the Landlord u/s 13(3)(a)(i):The main issue was whether the landlord's requirement was bona fide under section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The Rent Controller had rejected the landlord's petition, but the appellate authority allowed it. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate authority's decision, noting that the landlord's family had inadequate accommodation in the ancestral house. The Court also held that the respondent was a licensee in the ancestral house and not occupying another residential building in the urban area.4. Alleged Benami Transaction and Vacant Possession:The appellant claimed that the respondent had purchased another house and sold it in a benami transaction. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to support the claim that the sale was a benami transaction. The Court also held that the respondent did not have vacant possession of the house near Kabir Bhavan and that the sale of the house did not disentitle the respondent from seeking eviction.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellate authority was justified in admitting additional evidence and that the landlord's requirement was bona fide. The Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the consideration of evidence and the alleged benami transaction. The High Court's decision to dismiss the revision petition was upheld. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.