Onkar Nath Vs. Ved Vyas

.....value of acquired land -valuation report by expert valuer based on his personal visit to site, map drawn after measurements and after deducing cost of depreciation - pwd practice and standard engineering norms adopted for deciding value - all such factors, held, made the report worthy of credence. he being expert in his filed he can rely on his knowledge, experience and judgment to come to conclusion regarding type of material used in construction and its source, it is not necessary for him on report of some other person. section 51-a :[tarun chatterjee & v.s. sirpurkar, jj] meaning of expression may held, section 51-a permits acceptance of the certified copy of the sale transaction, as produced by the witness, even without examination of the vendor or vendee. however, the use of the term may in the said provision shows that there is discretion with the court to the extent of reliance to be placed on the same. where the state has been unable to adduce any evidence to rebut the sale deed, reliance on the same and to consider it genuine is permissible section 54: [tarun chatterjee & v.s.sirpurkar, jj] appeal - jurisdiction of supreme court under article 136 of constitution - interference with finding of fact - principles regarding - held, on the question of exercising power to interfere with findings of fact by the supreme court under article 136 the principles that emerge, are (1) the powers of supreme court under article 136 are very wide. (2) it is open to supreme court to interfere with the findings of fact given by the high court if the high court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly. (3) when the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective cases fell short of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe and improper to act upon it. (4) the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading.....order1. leave granted. 2. we have heard counsel on both sides in this short rent control case. the ground on which eviction was sought was in terms of section 13(3)(a)(i) of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949. the sub-section reads thus:3. (a) a landlord may apply to the controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession:(i) in case of the residential building,(a) he requires it for his own occupation; (b) he is not occupying any other residential building in the urban area concerned; and(c) has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this act, in the said urban area; it is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. in the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. but, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely, (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. there is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. the necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements.3. the statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken care to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfill the purpose of the statute. a mere affidavit at a late stage of the litigative process can hardly be adequate to meet the mandate of section 13(3) of the act. in these circumstances, we are constrained to allow the appeal. it is unfortunate that the respondent who moved for eviction is himself an advocate and at least for that.....