2003 (11) TMI 592 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 had no application in relation to the premises in question?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Order 18 Rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Applicability of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
3. Acceptance of affidavit as examination-in-chief in appealable cases.
4. Harmonious construction of Order 18 Rules 4 and 5.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Order 18 Rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The primary issue in this appeal is the interpretation of Order 18 Rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent filed an affidavit as examination-in-chief, which the appellant objected to, arguing that in appealable cases, Order 18 Rule 5 should apply, necessitating oral examination of witnesses in court. The trial court rejected this objection, holding that Order 18 Rule 4 authorizes the court to receive evidence on affidavit in any matter, including appealable cases. The High Court upheld this decision, noting that the appellant would have the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff and witnesses.

2. Applicability of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999:
The respondent filed a suit for eviction on the grounds that the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 did not apply to the premises in question. This context is relevant as it forms the basis of the legal proceedings and the subsequent interpretation of procedural rules regarding evidence.

3. Acceptance of Affidavit as Examination-in-Chief in Appealable Cases:
The appellant argued that Order 18 Rule 4 should not apply to appealable cases, and witnesses must be examined in court. The respondent countered that Order 18 Rule 4 mandates that examination-in-chief be on affidavit in every case, and cross-examination would occur in court. The court noted that the amendment to Order 18 Rule 4 aimed to reduce the time taken for examination-in-chief and found no distinction between appealable and non-appealable cases in the mode of recording evidence under Rule 4.

4. Harmonious Construction of Order 18 Rules 4 and 5:
The court emphasized the need for a harmonious construction of Order 18 Rules 4 and 5. Rule 4 mandates that examination-in-chief be on affidavit in every case, while Rule 5 outlines the procedure for taking evidence in appealable cases. The court held that both provisions should be given effect and that Rule 5 does not create an exception to Rule 4. The court agreed with the Bombay High Court's interpretation that in appealable cases, the affidavit for examination-in-chief must be confirmed by the deponent in court, and cross-examination should follow the procedure under Rule 5.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that Order 18 Rules 4 and 5 must be harmoniously construed. The examination-in-chief should be on affidavit in every case, with cross-examination and re-examination conducted in court or by a commissioner. The court found no merit in the appellant's argument and upheld the trial court's and High Court's decisions. There was no order as to costs.