2002 JTR(SC) 252
2002 AIR(SC) 1162 ; 2002 AIR(SCW) 928 ; 2002 1 AllCJ 397 ; 2002 48 AllLR 53 ; 2002 2 APLJ 7 ; 2002 96 DLT 320 ; 2002 2 ISJ(Banking) 534 ; 2002 2 JT 308 ; 2002 2 MLJ 120 ; 2002 1 RCJ 175 ; 2002 1 RCR(Rent) 334 ; 2002 1 RentLR 331 ; 2002 2 Scale 302 ; 2002 3 SCC 39 ; 2002 2 SCR 1 ; 2002 1 WLC 328 ; 2002 KHC 1167 ; 2002 2 Supreme 100
2002(2) Supreme 100
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
Sri Swami Krishnanand Govindanand -Appellant
versus
M/s. M.D. Oswal Hosiery (Regd.) -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5062 of 1997
Decided on 20-2-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Jaspal Singh, Senior Advocate and Shiv Prakash Pandey, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Rishi Kesh, Advocate.
VERY IMPORTANT POINT
A statements of a counsel for tenant conceding the ground of eviction and seeking some time to vacate the premises is neither an admission of the party u/s. 18 of Evidence Act, 1872 nor can be termed as a compromise.
Act
Referred
:DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT : S.22, S.22(d)
EVIDENCE ACT : S.18
(A) The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 22 read with Section 22(d) governs eviction proceedings where a landlord seeks recovery of premises on the ground that they are required bona fide for furtherance of its activities, here the appellant being a registered society. The Evidence Act, Section 18 addresses when statements against interest by parties or their agents are admissible as admissions, requiring such statements to be recorded judicially and supported by material to avoid being vitiated by lack of jurisdictional foundation. The Addl. Rent Controllers satisfaction under Clause (d) of Section 22 is contingent on findings of both institutional character and bona fide requirement, and cannot rest merely on conclusory submissions or extra-Bar concessions that fail the Evidence Act threshold for admission.
(B) A partys statement made to counsel across the Bar is not automatically an admission under the Evidence Act; material findings must be recorded on jurisdictional facts. An order passed without satisfying jurisdictional requirements is void. A concession of time for vacating premises does not equate to a compromise or binding contract.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a registered society, sought eviction of the respondent-tenant under Clause (d) of Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming bona fide need. The respondent denied the appellants institutional status and need. The respondents counsel conceded facts and grounds across the Bar, leading to an eviction order, which was challenged through writ and appeal. The High Court allowed the second appeal against the eviction order.
Findings of Court:
The Addl. Rent Controllers satisfaction was not based on material within the meaning of the Act, as the counsels statement across the Bar could not be treated as an admission binding the respondent under Section 18 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the eviction order lacked jurisdiction.
Issues:
Whether the counsels statement across the Bar constitutes an admission under the Evidence Act; whether the Addl. Rent Controller had jurisdiction to pass the eviction order; whether the order can be sustained without independent material supporting the jurisdictional findings.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 18 of the Evidence Act requires statements to meet specific criteria to be admissible as admissions; extra-Bar statements do not automatically bind a party. A statutory order under Section 22(Clause d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act must be founded on material satisfying jurisdictional facts, and cannot rest on inadmissible admissions, rendering the eviction order void.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
(A) The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 22 read with Section 22(d) governs eviction proceedings where a landlord seeks recovery of premises on the ground that they are required bona fide for furtherance of its activities, here the appellant being a registered society. The Evidence Act, Section 18 addresses when statements against interest by parties or their agents are admissible as admissions, requiring such statements to be recorded judicially and supported by material to avoid being vitiated by lack of jurisdictional foundation. The Addl. Rent Controllers satisfaction under Clause (d) of Section 22 is contingent on findings of both institutional character and bona fide requirement, and cannot rest merely on conclusory submissions or extra-Bar concessions that fail the Evidence Act threshold for admission.
(B) A partys statement made to counsel across the Bar is not automatically an admission under the Evidence Act; material findings must be recorded on jurisdictional facts. An order passed without satisfying jurisdictional requirements is void. A concession of time for vacating premises does not equate to a compromise or binding contract.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a registered society, sought eviction of the respondent-tenant under Clause (d) of Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming bona fide need. The respondent denied the appellants institutional status and need. The respondents counsel conceded facts and grounds across the Bar, leading to an eviction order, which was challenged through writ and appeal. The High Court allowed the second appeal against the eviction order.
Findings of Court:
The Addl. Rent Controllers satisfaction was not based on material within the meaning of the Act, as the counsels statement across the Bar could not be treated as an admission binding the respondent under Section 18 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the eviction order lacked jurisdiction.
Issues:
Whether the counsels statement across the Bar constitutes an admission under the Evidence Act; whether the Addl. Rent Controller had jurisdiction to pass the eviction order; whether the order can be sustained without independent material supporting the jurisdictional findings.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 18 of the Evidence Act requires statements to meet specific criteria to be admissible as admissions; extra-Bar statements do not automatically bind a party. A statutory order under Section 22(Clause d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act must be founded on material satisfying jurisdictional facts, and cannot rest on inadmissible admissions, rendering the eviction order void.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
ORDER
This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi allowing the respondent s Second Appeal Order No.275 of 1980 on December 2, 1981.
2. The appellant-landlord of the suit premises is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. It filed application against the respondent-tenant for his eviction from the suit premises under Clause (d) of Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short "the Act") on the ground that the premises are required bona fide for furtherance of its activities. The respondent filed written statement denying both that the appellant is an institution within the meaning of that provision and that it required the premises bona fide for furtherance of its activities. It appears that when the case was posted for trial, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent conceded the facts disputed by the respondent in his written statement before the Court. That statement of the advocate was recorded by the Addl. Rent Controller thus: "The respondent s learned counsel has admitted the ground of eviction and also the fact that applicant is a public charitable institution and for that purpose it required the premises". On that basis the eviction application filed by the appellant was allowed on 24th March, 1973. Within a week thereafter the respondent filed a review petition which was dismissed. He then filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the said order of eviction but that was dismissed as withdrawn on July 22, 1974. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal against the said order of eviction before the Rent Control Tribunal but it was also dismissed on September 5, 1977. Be that as it may, when the appellant filed a petition for execution of order of eviction, the respondent raised objections both under Section 40 of the Act as well as under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By separate orders both the objection petitions were dismissed on April 5, 1980. That order was challenged by the respondent unsuccessfully before the Rent Control Tribunal. Dis-satisfied with order of the Tribunal dated May 16, 1980, dismissing the appeal, the respondent filed the aforementioned second appeal which was allowed on December 2, 1981. It is against that order of the High Court that the present appeal is filed by special leave.
3. Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, has vehemently contended that statement made by the learned counsel of the respondent, across the Bar is indeed an admission of the party and, therefore, the Addl. Rent Controller recorded his satisfaction on the basis of the admission; the order of the Addl. Rent Controller cannot thereby be treated as being without jurisdiction. We are afraid we cannot accede to the contention of the learned counsel. Whether the appellant is an institution within the meaning of Section 22 of the Act and whether it required bona fide the premises for furtherance of its activities, are questions touching the jurisdiction of the Addl. Rent Controller. He can record his satisfaction only when he holds on these questions in favour of the appellant. For so holding there must be material on record to support his satisfaction otherwise the satisfaction not based on any material or based on irrelevant material, would be vitiated and any order passed on such a satisfaction will be without jurisdiction. There can be no doubt that admission of a party is a relevant material. But can the statement made by the learned counsel of a party across the Bar be treated as admission of the party? Having regard to the requirements of Section 18 of the Evidence Act, on the facts of this case, in our view, the aforementioned statement of the counsel of the respondent can not be accepted as an admission so as to bind the respondent. Excluding that statement from consideration there was thus no material before the Addl. Rent Controller to record his satisfaction within the meaning of Clause (d) of Section 22 of the Act. It follows that the order of eviction was without jurisdiction.
4. The learned counsel next contended that the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent should be treated as a compromise as the Court granted five years time to the respondent for vacating the suit premises. In our view, this contention has to be rejected. The compromise like a contract postulates consensus between two parties. A statement of a counsel conceding the grounds of eviction and seeking some time for the respondent to vacate the premises, can not be termed a compromise.
5. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order under challenge. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
(N.K.R.) Appeal dismissed.
**************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Sri SwamI Krishanand Govindanand v. M/s. M.D. Oswal Hosiery (Regd), 2002(2) Supreme 100 : 2002(2) JT 308 : 2002(1) RCJ 334 : (2002) 3 SCC 39 : 2002(1) CCC 219 : 2002 (1) RLR 331 : 2002(1) RCJ 175 : AIR 2002 SC 1162 : 2002(2) ISJ (Banking) 534.
00028