9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Admission of additional evidence by the appellate authority. 2. Consideration of evidence adduced by the appellant before the Rent Controller. 3. Bona fide requirement of the landlord u/s 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. 4. Alleged benami transaction and vacant possession of another house. Summary: 1. Admission of Additional Evidence: The appellant contended that the appellate authority erred in admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court held that the appellate authority has the same jurisdiction as the trial court to admit additional evidence if warranted by the facts and circumstances. Section 15(4) of the Act specifically provides that the appellate authority can admit additional evidence if necessary. The Court found that no prejudice was caused to the appellant by the admission of such evidence. 2. Consideration of Evidence Adduced by the Appellant: The appellant argued that the appellate authority did not consider the evidence presented before the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that the appellate authority had considered all the facts recorded by the Rent Controller and the additional evidence. The appellate authority was conscious of the evidence adduced by the appellant before the Rent Controller. 3. Bona Fide Requirement of the Landlord u/s 13(3)(a)(i): The main issue was whether the landlord's requirement was bona fide under section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The Rent Controller had rejected the landlord's petition, but the appellate authority allowed it. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate authority's decision, noting that the landlord's family had inadequate accommodation in the ancestral house. The Court also held that the respondent was a licensee in the ancestral house and not occupying another residential building in the urban area. 4. Alleged Benami Transaction and Vacant Possession: The appellant claimed that the respondent had purchased another house and sold it in a benami transaction. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence to support the claim that the sale was a benami transaction. The Court also held that the respondent did not have vacant possession of the house near Kabir Bhavan and that the sale of the house did not disentitle the respondent from seeking eviction. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellate authority was justified in admitting additional evidence and that the landlord's requirement was bona fide. The Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the consideration of evidence and the alleged benami transaction. The High Court's decision to dismiss the revision petition was upheld. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
