Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1980 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1980 (4) TMI 312 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues:
Two connected petitions for eviction based on tenancy disputes.
1. Interpretation of Section 85 of the Evidence Act regarding authentication by Notary Public.
2. Review of trial court's finding on the existence of landlord-tenant relationship.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 85 of the Evidence Act
The petitioners challenged the legality of the decrees passed by the District Judge on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioners argued that the Notary Public from Pakistan authenticating the power of attorney could not be considered a Notary Public within the meaning of Section 85 of the Evidence Act. The petitioners contended that the presumption under Section 85 only applies to Notaries Public as defined by the Notaries Act. The court considered various precedents cited by both parties and concluded that documents authenticated by Notaries Public from other countries should be presumed duly notarized under Section 85. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Notaries Act should not limit the application of Section 85, citing relevant case laws to support this interpretation.

Issue 2: Review of Trial Court's Finding
The second ground of challenge involved the review of the trial court's finding on the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The District Judge set aside the trial court's finding, emphasizing that vital admissions crucial to the case were ignored by the trial court. The District Judge justified the reversal under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, stating that the trial court's finding was not in accordance with the evidence on record. The District Judge carefully analyzed the evidence and circumstances to conclude that the reversal of the trial court's finding was warranted. The High Court upheld the District Judge's decision, noting that the trial court had overlooked significant evidence, leading to an incorrect finding. Therefore, the High Court dismissed both petitions, granting the petitioners four months to vacate the accommodation and pay damages if necessary.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates