9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of the unstamped power of attorney. 2. Purpose of letting the premises. 3. Ownership of the property. 4. Bona fide requirement of the respondent for the premises. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of the unstamped power of attorney: The appellant contended that the eviction petition was filed by the respondent's attorney without a duly stamped power of attorney, which was executed in London on 8th November 1977 and not stamped within three months of its receipt in India as required under Section 18(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Additional Controller had impounded the document and directed the respondent to pay the stamp duty and penalty under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. The court opined that upon payment of the stamp duty and penalty, the document became admissible in evidence per Section 35. The argument that payment does not make the document admissible after three months was dismissed, citing that Sections 31 and 32 were not applicable in this context. The court cited precedents supporting the admissibility of such documents upon payment of the required duties and penalties. 2. Purpose of letting the premises: The respondent claimed the premises were let for residential purposes, while the appellant contended they were not specifically for residential purposes and could be used for all purposes. The court noted that the land was a lease-hold property meant for residential use per the lease deed between the President of India and the respondent. The appellant admitted using the premises for residential purposes since the inception of the tenancy. The court held that the onus was on the appellant to prove the premises could be used for purposes other than residence, which he failed to do. Thus, it was concluded that the premises were let for residential purposes. 3. Ownership of the property: The appellant disputed the respondent's ownership of the property. The respondent testified that he was the owner and presented the lease deed (Ex. A.W. 1/1) as evidence. The appellant argued that the contents of the lease deed were not proved as the executant was not examined. The court found that the respondent's testimony, coupled with the lease deed in his favor, was sufficient to establish ownership. The appellant did not cross-examine the respondent on this point, effectively admitting the respondent's ownership. The court dismissed the appellant's reliance on case law requiring the executant's testimony for proving document contents, as the facts were not applicable here. 4. Bona fide requirement of the respondent for the premises: The appellant argued that the respondent's requirement was not bona fide, alleging that the respondent was a British national settled in London. The respondent and his wife, both retired, expressed their desire to live in their own country, India. The court noted that the respondent did not own any other property in Delhi and intended to occupy the suit premises. The court emphasized that Section 19 of the Act provided sufficient protection, ensuring the landlord occupies the premises within two months and retains it for at least three years, failing which the tenant could reclaim possession. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the Controller and the Tribunal that the respondent's requirement was bona fide. Conclusion: The court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's judgment and order confirming the eviction against the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
