LAW FOR ALL

ACT: Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, s. 13(3)(a)i) and 15(4)--Application for ejectment--Bona fide requirement of building by landlord--Jurisdiction of appellate authority to admit additional evidence. Statutory interpretation--Rent Act-A beneficial legislation-Whether it should be read reasonably and justly. HEADNOTE: On 11th October 1971, the respondent-landlord purchased a house in which the appellant was a tenant since 1962. He had also purchased another house in the same district on 10.7.1971 but sold away the same on 7.8.72 as it was not vacant. On 14th January, 1974, the respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the appellant-tenant inter alia on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The Rent Controller rejected the petition holding that all the ingre- dients of s. 13(3)(a)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 had not been proved. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority alongwith an application for adducing additional evidence. The Appellate Authority allowed the said application, re- corded the additional evidence and allowed the appeal, holding that: (i) the need of the respondent was bona fide; (ii) that the vacant possession of the house purchased on the 10th July 1971 by the respondent-landlord had not been obtained; and (iii) that the sale of the aforesaid house by the respondent was not a benami transaction. The High Court dismissed the revision petition of the appellant in limine. Dismissing the appeal by the appellant to this Court, HELD: 1.1 Section 15 of the Act deals with the powers of the appellate and revisional authorities under the Act. Sub-s. (4) of the said section specifically provides that, if necessary, after further enquiry as it thinks fit. either personally or through the Controller, the appellate authori- ty shall decide the appeal. Therefore, the appellate author- ity has by express provision jurisdiction to admit addition- al evidence. [520E] 517 State of Kerala v.K.M. Charia Abdullah & Co., [1965] 1 S.C.R. 601, relied upon. 1.2 The document relied upon on behalf of the appellant was a registered document and recited that vacant possession has been given. The document stated 'Kabza Khali makan ka dia hai'. It was asserted that it meant that a vacant pos- session, in fact, had been given. The oral evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent indicated otherwise. The expres- sion indicated above does not mean that actual physical vacant possession has been handed over to the purchaser. In a document of this type it can equally mean that the legal right of the possession not the actual possession has been handed over to the purchaser. Therefore, evidence was per- missible to explain what it meant, and there was ample justification on the evidence on record to come to the conclusion that it was 'not physically vacant'. [524F -- 525A] In the instant case, admission of additional evidence was warranted by the facts and the pleadings. By such admis- sion of evidence, no prejudice has been caused to the appel- lant. Indeed reading of the order of the appellate authority makes it abundantly clear that the appellate authority had adverted to all the facts recorded by the Rent Controller and further considered the additional evidence. It is true that in referring to the findings of the Rent Controller, the appellate authority in its order had not specifically referred to the paragraphs of the order of the Rent Control- ler but that does not mean nor does it indicate that the appellate authority had not considered evidence adduced before the Rent Controller. The criticism that there was no consideration of the evidence adduced by the appellant before the Rent Controller by the appellate authority is, therefore, not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. [521B -- E] 2. Though the Rent Act is a beneficial legislation, it must be read reasonably and justly. If more limitations are imposed upon the right to hold the property then it would expose itself to the vice of unconstitutionality. Such an approach in interpretation of beneficial statutes is not warranted. It is true that one should iron out the creases and should take a creative approach as to what was intended by a particular provision but there is always, unless rebut- ted, a presumption as to constitutionality and the Act should be so read as to prevent it from being exposed to the vice of unconstitutionality. [525F -- G] In the instant case, the suit for eviction for the need of the landlord was filed in January, 1972. The respondent could not therefore be said, in view of the above premises having been purchased and sold prior to the institution of the suit, to have occupied another residential building in the urban area. The 518 contention on behalf of the appellant, that the sale has disentitled the respondent to the relief asked for because he had in his choice the residential building for his occu- pation but he sold it, is not maintainable. There was no evidence either before the Rent Controller or before the appellate authority that this sale of property was with the intention or with a purpose to defeat the claim of the appellant or to take out the respondent from the purview of the limitation imposed by clause (1)(a) of sub-s.(3) of s. 13 of the Act. As the respondent had sold the properly 1-1/2 years before his suit for his need was instituted, it cannot be said unless there was definite evidence that it was done with the intention to defeat the appellant's claim. The appellate authority accepted the respondent's need and found him within the purview of the Act. The High Court did not interfere in revision, nor shall this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. [525D -- F, 526C -- F] Rani Sartaj Kuari and Another v. Rani Deoraj Kuari, 15 Indian Appeals, 51 in-applicable. State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram (Dead) Through Shri Gurbax Rai, [1969] 3 SCR 681; Sundarsanam Maistri v. Nara- simbhulu Maistri and Anr., ILR 25 Mad. 149, 154; Commission- er of Wealth Tax, Kanpur & Others v. Chander Sen and Others, [1986] 3 SCC 567; Lachhman Das v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly and another AIR 1953 Allahabad 458 at 459, paragraph 6; K.P. Varghese v. 1. T.O., Ernakulam and Anoth- er[1981] 4 SCC 173 at 179-180 & Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Another [1980] 3 SCR 1338 at 1357 referred to: