9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issue involves the High Court granting leave to the Respondent-landlord to plead subsequent events in a revision proceeding, leading to the grant of possession without a formal enquiry or recording of evidence. Judgment Details: Issue 1: Distinction between Pleading and Proof The appellant-tenant contended that the High Court erred in assuming the subsequent events alleged by the respondent as proved without a formal enquiry or evidence. The Court emphasized the distinction between pleading and proof, stating that if facts are admitted, there may not be a need for further proof. However, depending on the circumstances, the Court may require independent proof. The Court highlighted the flexibility in procedures when dealing with subsequent events in appeals or revisions, allowing for evidence to be adduced through affidavits or oral examination as necessary. Issue 2: Consideration of Subsequent Events The Court referred to legal principles emphasizing that courts can consider subsequent events that impact the parties' entitlement to relief. In this case, the Court set aside the orders under appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court to consider both the subsequent events relied upon by the respondent and those raised by the appellant. The High Court was directed to decide on the need for oral evidence or affidavit-based evidence based on the nature of the facts presented. The Court urged expeditious disposal of the revision petition within three months from the date of the order. Conclusion: The Court set aside the previous orders and disposed of the appeal by remitting the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration of the subsequent events raised by both parties. The High Court was instructed to decide on the evidentiary requirements based on the nature of the facts presented and to dispose of the revision petition in accordance with the law within three months. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
