MUNDRI LAL Vs. SUSHILA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Poonam Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the tenant/revisionist and Sri M. K. Gupta Advocate for the landlord-respondents.

(2.) THE instant revision has come after remand from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. THE respondent landlord instituted a J. S. C. C. Suit for eviction. THE tenant preferred a Civil Revision before this Court which was allowed. THE order was challenged in the Apex Court vide Civil Appeal No. 1460 of 2005 arising out of SLP (C) No. 22387 of 2001, Sushila v. Mundri Lal & Anr. THE Apex Court has remanded the matter for the reason that the civil revision was allowed by this Court placing reliance on a judgment in the case of Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, 1984 (3) SCC 352, which stood overruled by a larger Bench, in the case of Suresh Chandra v. Gulam Chisti, (1990) SCC 593. Two subsequent decisions of the Apex Court had taken similar view. While remitting the case to this Court, an observation was made that if other questions which arise for consideration in the revision before the High Court, parties shall be heard and liberty was also given that this Court has discretion to remit the matter to the trial Court if it so requires.

(3.) SRI M. K. Gupta has emphatically disputed the arguments of SRI Manish Goyal regarding permission to adduce additional evidence at this stage. The objections are many folds. The first objection is that the documents sought to be brought on record were in existence when the suit was pending before the trial Court and no effort was made by the tenant to bring the document on record. Emphasis is laid on a clear admission made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the affidavit that the tenant-revisionist thought of collecting additional evidence on the basis of legal advice given to him after the suit was decreed; meaning thereby it was to fill up the lacuna in the judgment of Judge Small Causes Court. The evidence sought to be adduced now is on the advice of his Counsel to somehow meet out the findings arrived at by the Court below. Besides, it is also pointed out, in case these documents are permitted to be brought on record, it would lead to factual controversy. Each document which the revisionist desires to bring on record at this stage, has specifically been assailed by the Counsel for the contesting respondents. SRI M. K. Gupta has submitted that the sanctioned map relates to House Nos. 177 and 177/a while the disputed property bears Municipal No. 177-E Raja Rati Ram who was original owner of the entire property and sold it to Smt. Pushpa Devi and her two sons Chandra Prakash and Vijay Prakash Jain by a registered sale-deed on 21-5-1965. Thereafter a family settlement took place in Original Suit No. 67 of 1969 and property bearing Municipal Nos. 177-E and 177 F came in the share of Smt. Pushpa Devi, copy of the said plaint has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent. The other portion of the building bearing Municipal Nos. 177 and 177-A went to other co-sharers which was subsequently transferred by registered sale-deed dated 7-12-1970 in favour of Anil Jain and Anand Jain. This portion is the same portion in respect of which the map dated 8-10-1954 issued by the Cantonment Board is being relied upon. The sale-deed has also been annexed as Annexure CA- 3. It is also not disputed that at the time when the landlady purchased the house in question, it was two storied building but substantial additions and alterations were made by the answering respondents and ground floor was converted into a non-residential area by replacing the roof with four RCC Beams and by constructing a bathroom and latrine after removing the passage and the store and earlier the five arches were removed which was replaced by pillars and beams. All these new constructions were taken into consideration to arrive at a conclusion by the trial Court that the constructions are new. It was on account of new construction, the valuation of the property escalated w. e. f 1-4- 1978. SRI Manish Goyal has also tried to adduce Chalani Report which is an order of the Judicial Magistrate dated 16-1-1975 which relates to major construction of the first floor. This document was traced out on the basis of statement of PW-1 paper No. 23-Ga where the time and date of construction has been given.