H.S. BEDI Vs. SMT. DHANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision petition under Section 15(4) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 arising out of proceedings for his eviction at the instance of the landlady.

(2.) THE premises Shop No. 50 on The Mall, in Simla was let out by the Respondent Smt. Dhani Devi to Krishan Kumar about two decades ago. It consists of a ground floor and a first floor. Krishan Kumar, it appears, let out the first floor to the Petitioner H.S. Bedi. Smt. Dhani Devi applied for adjustment of both Krishan Kumar and Bedi, the ground being that the premises had been sub -let to Bedi without her consent. On December 12, 1963 the petition was dismissed. Thereafter, in 1967, Smt. Dhani Devi filed another petition this time for the eviction of Bedi alone. The petition was founded on the ground that she required the accommodation for her bona fide personal use. The petition was resisted by Bedi on two grounds, firstly, that the tenancy could not be split up and, secondly, that Smt. Dhani Devi did not require the accommodation for her own use. The Controller who tried the petition took the view that it was not open to Smt. Dhani Devi to split up the tenancy and maintain the petition on that basis. Accordingly, he rejected the petition. The Appellate Authority, who heard an appeal against the order, endorsed the view taken by the Controller. Smt. Dhani Devi then applied in revision to this Court, and the Court held that on the facts and circumstances of the case it could not be said that the tenancy had been split up. Accordingly, it remanded the case to the Controller for decision on the merits. That decision has since been reported as Dhani Devi v. Krishan Kumar and Ors., 1971 R C R 919.

(3.) IN this revision petition by Bedi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that an application was made before the Appellate Authority by Bedi on December 19, 1976 for permission to bring on the record a Photostat copy of a certificate issued by the Premier Homeopathic Medical College, Chandigarh certifying that Bedi had joined and completed the prescribed course of the College in recognition of which the M.B.B.S. (Homoeo) Diploma was granted. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the circumstance that the appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Authority without consideration of this application. The grievance seems to be justified. The application was made when the appeal was pending, and it was for the Appellate Authority to dispose of the application. Whether the application should have been allowed or rejected was a matter for the Appellate Authority to determine. It appears that when disposing of the appeal the Appellate Authority lost sight of the fact that the application was still pending on the record and had not been disposed of. However, in this revision petition it is open to me to consider the application. Now, the application is accompanied by a Photostat copy of the certificate, and it recites that it was not possible for Bedi to file the certificate at the time when his statement was recorded by the Controller because it had been misplaced. That allegation of fact is not supported by any proof. The Petitioner should have filed an affidavit or adduced other proof verifying the allegation. It is contended by learned Counsel that the Appellate Authority was obliged to call on the Petitioner to file an affidavit and he should have done so. To my mind, the submission proceeds on a misconception. The application was made by the Petitioner for relief in his favour, and it was for the Petitioner to show that there was substance in the allegations contained therein. It was open to the Appellate Authority to reject the application outright in the absence of any proof in support of it. Indeed, it was not necessary for it even to issue notice to the Respondent to show cause against the grant of the relief claimed in the application. It is incorrect to say that a duty is cast on the Appellate Authority to call for proof. In the absence of any proof in support of the application, I am compelled to reject it.