9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business in the building which was in the occupation of his tenants. 3. The learned trial Judge decreed all the petitions and passed orders of eviction against every one of the 7 tenants. One of these, who occupied a so-called shop measuring 4' X 4' under a stairway, acquiesced in the decree of eviction passed against him. The other 3 tenants of the shop premises challenged the decrees of eviction passed against them by filing appeals before the Appellate Authority. In so far as the residential premises are concerned, 2 out of the 3 tenants on the first floor filed appeals against the eviction decrees. The third tenant like the ground floor tenant under the stairway, acquiesced in the decree. In short, 5 out of the 7 tenants against whom decrees for eviction were passed, filed appeals while the remaining two did not 4. The Appellate Authority dismissed all the 3 appeals of the tenants of the shop premises on the ground floor but allowed the appeals filed by the two tenants of the residential premises on the first floor. The combined result of the proceedings in the trial Court and the first appellate Court was that the respondent succeeded in obtaining decrees for po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of individuality in the response to injustice cannot be avoided. It is a well-known fact of constitutional history, even in countries where the whole court sits to hear every case, that the composition of majorities is not static. It changes from subject to subject though, perhaps, not from case to case. Personal responses to injustice are not esoteric. Indeed, they furnish refreshing assurance of close and careful attention witch the judges give to the cases which come before them. We do not believe that the litigating public will prefer a computerised system of administration of justice : only, that the Chancellor's foot must tread warily. 7. Counsel for the appellant, Shri Vaidyanathan, has discharged admirably the heavy onus which lies upon him to establish that the decision come to by three courts in this case is such as cannot possibly be accepted. We will proceed to show immediately how, by drawing a priori conclusions, the courts, with great respect, have denied justice to the appellant The trial court deluded itself into believing as proved, what remained to be proved by the production of evidence which could have been produced but was not produced. The first appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng into a loss was not only not produced but suppressed. 10. Having seen that the trial Court accepted the case of the respondent without an objective and careful assessment of the evidence bearing upon the so-called requirement of the landlord, we will turn to the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The learned appellate Judge says that the single circumstance that the respondent was running his business in tenanted premises was sufficient to justify the conclusion that his requirement of the suit premises was bona fide. After recording this conclusion, the learned appellate Judge proceeds to say : The hue and cry of the tenants in the ground floor portion of the petition-mentioned premises that they will be thrown to the street in the event of an order of eviction being passed need no fatal be considered. The very fact that the respondent had filed this petition immediately after his purchase of the property in the year 1975goesa long way to prove that his very purpose of purchasing the premises must have been to set up his business whether wholesale or retail in the petition-mentioned premises. 11. The appellate Court went one step ahead of the respondent by making out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, sitting in revision, it could not have reappreciated the evidence in the case as if it were a court of appeal. But, in saying so, the High Court, with respect, missed the real point in the case. 15. The main contention of the appellant before the High Court was that so long as the eviction petitions were pending in the trial Court and the first appellate Court, it could not be predicated with certainty as to in how many cases the respondent would succeed finally. That position had crystallised after the Appellate 'Authority had rendered its judgment. As stated by us at the beginning of this judgment, 1 out of the 3 tenants on the first floor did not challenge the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court The landlord had, therefore, succeeded finally against him. Out of the 4 tenants of the shop premises on the ground floor, the tenant under the stairway did not challenge the decree for eviction passed against him by the trial Court. We will, however, leave that gentleman alone, since he was in possession of an area measuring 4' X 4' only. The remaining 3 tenants on the ground floor, including the appellant, had filed appeals against the decrees of evictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... situation, it would be incorrect to say that as a decree or, order for eviction is passed against the tenant he cannot invite the Court to take into Consideration subsequent events. The tenant can be precluded from so contending only when a decree or order for eviction has become final. (See pages 606-607). Justice R. S. Pathak. who concurred with Justice D.A. Desai and Justice Venkataramiah, expressed the same view thus : It is well settled now that in a proceeding for the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement under a statute controlling the eviction of tenants, unless the statute prescribes to the contrary, the requirement must continue to exist on the date when the proceeding is finally disposed of either in appeal or revision, by the relevant authority. That position is indisputable. (See page 624). 17. The High Court having failed to consider the circumstances which had arisen before it for the first time, it becomes our duty to have regard to them. Having considered the evidence in the case, particularly the fact that the landlord has obtained decrees for possession against 3 out of the 4 tenants on the ground floor and 1 out of the 3 tenants on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
