http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: GURDEV SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SURJIT KUMAR @ JIT & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/05/1996

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1619            1996 SCC  (4)  33  JT 1996 (4)   701        1996 SCALE  (4)127

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K. VENKATASWAMI J.      Leave granted.      Heard counsel.      The first  appellant is  recorded to  be dead. His LRs. are prosecuting this appeal. The deceased appellant filed an ejectment application  against the respondents herein on the grounds that  the  first  respondent  has  sublet  the  suit premises to the second respondent without a written consent; that  the   suit  house  is  in  dilapidated  condition  and therefore, unfit  and unsafe  for human habitation; that the hose was  required for his personal use and occupation after reconstruction thereof  and that the respondent had not paid the rent  since may,  1985  onwards.  The  first  respondent remained ex-parte.  The second respondent opposed vehemently the ejectment  application. The  contention  of  the  second respondent was that he was the direst tenant and the grounds in support  of ejectment  application were  wholly untenable and the  application itself  was liable to be dismissed. The learned Rent  Controller accepting  the case  of the  second respondent dismissed  the ejectment application on appeal by the deceased  first appellant.  the Appellate Authority also concurred  with     the  Rent  Controller  and  consequently dismissed the  appeal. On  further revision,  the High Court dismissed the  revision in  limine. Hence the present appeal by special leave has been preferred by the landlord.      When the  Special Leave  Petition No.  23300/95 came up for orders  on 30.10.1995,  this Court  passed the following Order :-      "Mr.  D.V.   Sehgal,  learned   Sr.      Advocate for  the  petitioner  says      that Gurdev  and his wife both have      retired  form  service  in  Canada.      They have  taken a decision to come      back to  India and  reside  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    house.      Keeping  in  view  this  subsequent      development,      issue      notice      returnable  in   12  weeks.   Dasti      process in addition."      As noticed  at the beginning , the first appellant died after filing the Special Leave petition. The application for substitution was  allowed. On the basis of subsequent event. the widow  of the  deceased first  appellant has stated that after the   deceased  first appellant  has stated that after the death  of her husband she has "permanently back to India and needs the house in question for her personal residence". In the  normal circumstances in view of the settled position of law  that subsequent  events have to be taken note of, we would have  allowed the  ejectment application accepting the statement of  the  second  appellant  (widow  of  the  first appellant by stating as follows:           "The widow  Smt.  Surjit  Kaur      came to  India for  a few  days  to      perform  the   last  rites  of  her      deceased husband/petitioner and had      gone back  and this opportunity she      chose to  file  the  present  false      affidavits."      Further, the  learned counsel  appearing for the second respondent  in   his  written  submissions  has  raised  the following subjection :-           "That even  if it  is presumed      that new  facts have been placed on      record, which  is very much denied,      but by  no stretch of imagination ,      it has  been laid by any Court that      new facts  can  be  assumed  to  be      correct without  trial. The  LRs or      the widow  have to  prove  the  new      facts before the trial court."      It is  also objected  to on the ground that the LRs and or the  widow have  to prove  and satisfy the ingredients of law viz.  Sec. 13(3)(a)(1)(b) of the Punjab Rent restriction Act.      In the  circumstances, we  feel that the end of justice will be  met if  the case  is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to  enable the  LRs. of  the  first  appellant  to establish  their   claim   for   ejectment   under   present circumstances in  the light  of the  above said provision of law.      Accordingly, the  orders of  the  High  Court  and  the Appellate Authority  will restore  on   its  file  the  Rend Appeal and  dispose of  the same  in accordance with law. It will be  open to  the  Appellate  Authority  to  permit  the parties  to   fill  additional  pleadings  and  adduce  oral evidence.      The appeal  is disposed  of accordingly.  There  is  no order as to costs.