9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (11) TMI 436 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the appeal by DCC against the eviction decree was defective or invalid? Whether such defect could be permitted to be rectified? Held that - Appeal dismissed. High Court was justified in setting aside the dismissal and restoring the first appeal to the file of the Additional District Judge with a direction to decide the matter on merits. If the representation was found to be defective or non-existent, the appellate court ought to have granted an opportunity to the second appellant DCC, to rectify the defect. There is yet another reason to hold that the appeal by DCC against the eviction decree was validly filed. DCC was represented by Shri Bindeshwar Prasad Singh and his colleagues in the trial court. The same counsel filed the appeal. The Vakalatnama granted by DCC in favour of the said counsel in the trial court was sufficient authorization to the said counsel to file the appeal having regard to Order 3 Rule 4(2) CPC read with Explanation c , even without a separate vakalatnama for the appeal.
Issues Involved:
1. Unauthorized sub-letting of premises. 2. Default in paying rent and electricity charges. 3. Requirement of premises for personal use. 4. Validity of appeal by DCC against the eviction decree. 5. Procedural defect in representation and filing of Vakalatnama. Detailed Analysis: 1. Unauthorized Sub-letting of Premises: The appellant-plaintiff filed an eviction suit on the ground that the suit premises were let out to A. N. Singh for his personal residential occupation, but A. N. Singh had unauthorizedly sub-let a portion of the premises to the District Congress Committee (DCC). The trial court found that A. N. Singh took the premises on rent in his personal capacity and sub-let a portion to DCC without the landlord's consent, leading to a decree for eviction. 2. Default in Paying Rent and Electricity Charges: Another ground for eviction was that A. N. Singh defaulted in paying rent and electricity charges. The trial court held that A. N. Singh indeed committed default in these payments, supporting the decree for eviction and payment of arrears. 3. Requirement of Premises for Personal Use: The appellant-plaintiff also claimed that the premises were required for personal use. However, the defendants denied this claim, and the trial court's decision primarily focused on the unauthorized sub-letting and default in payments rather than the personal use requirement. 4. Validity of Appeal by DCC Against the Eviction Decree: The defendants, A. N. Singh and DCC, filed an appeal against the eviction decree. During the pendency of the appeal, A. N. Singh died, and his legal heirs did not come on record. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, claiming to be the 'Working President' of DCC, sought to substitute himself in place of A. N. Singh. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that no valid appeal was filed on behalf of DCC, as the Vakalatnama was signed only by A. N. Singh. 5. Procedural Defect in Representation and Filing of Vakalatnama: The High Court allowed the appeal by Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and DCC, reasoning that DCC, a separate juristic person, was already on record and the defect in representation could be rectified. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights. The Court noted that the omission to file a Vakalatnama by DCC was not deliberate and could be corrected. It cited precedents where procedural lapses were allowed to be rectified to avoid injustice. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal by DCC against the eviction decree was validly filed, despite the procedural defect in representation. The Court highlighted the importance of rectifying procedural defects to ensure justice and prevent substantive rights from being defeated. The appeal was dismissed, and the matter was directed to be decided on merits by the Additional District Judge.
|
