Sat NaraIn and Another Vs. JaIn Ram

Sat NaraIn and Another vs JaIn Ram

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 10, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/695159

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/695159
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Vijender Jain, J.
Decided On: Aug 10, 1999
Case Number: SAO 157 of 1987 & CM 2226/97
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

a) The case discussed the appreciation of evidence in second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against the findings of the Trial Court - It was held that the finding of the Trial Court could not be set aside even if the Appellate Court had come to a different finding on appreciation of evid...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Acts & sections: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 15(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sat NaraIn and Another

Advocate Mr. Sarvesh Bisaria, Adv

Respondent

JaIn Ram

Advocate Mr. R.L. Nanda, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 15(1)
Reported In: 1999VAD(Delhi)653; 81(1999)DLT633; 1999RLR512

Excerpt

a) the case discussed the appreciation of evidence in second appeal under section 100 of the civil procedure code, 1908, against the findings of the trial court - it was held that the finding of the trial court could not be set aside even if the appellate court had come to a different finding on appreciation of evidenceb) the case discussed the decision of the rent tribunal in modifying the order of the additional rent controller (arc), on the basis of presumption that the rent could have been in front of the witness - the arc had ordered deposition of rent at the rate of one hundred and twenty five rupees per month and the tribunal had held that the rent was fifty five rupees instead of the rent ordered by the arc - the presumption of the tribunal was not supported by the testimony of the witness in examination in chief or in his cross examination - thus the order of the tribunal was set aside and the respondent was directed to comply with the order of arc - - the law with regard to appreciation of evidence is well settled......13th january, 1987 wherein the tribunal modified the order of the addl. rent controller and held that the rate of rent which was to be paid by the respondent was @ rs. 55/- and not rs. 125/- as was held by the addl. rent controller, who passed an order under section 15(1) of the delhi rent control act. 2. learned counsel for the respondent has contended that this appeal does not raise any question of law. rate of rent is not a question of law. i find no force in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent as it was the basis on which the rent control tribunal had set aside the finding of the additional rent controller which from bare perusal of records seems untenable. the first order for deposit of rent was passed by the additional rent controller on 5th july, 1985 under section 15(1) of the delhi rent control act. in that order it was held that the monthly rent was rs. 125/- per month. aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the rent control tribunal. the appeal of the respondent was dismissed on 6th august, 1985. final order was passed on 18th september, 1986. on the basis of writing marked 'a' in deposition before the additional rent controller, the appellant who appeared as aw-1 deposed that the rate of rent was rs. 125/- per month. on mark 'a' it was admitted by the respondent that it was his signature. mark 'a' was to the following effect:- main jairam kirayadar ke roop me makan malik brij narain sharma wa sat narain sharma ke makan me 125/- rupee mahavar ek sal ke liye liya hai. agar meri taraf se koi galti hogi to mai makan chhor doonga. mane 23.2.77 se liya hai. 3. when the respondent had admitted the signature at mark 'a', there was no reason not to believe the testimony of aw-1 in conjunction with mark 'a' on which the respondent admittedly, signed in acceptance thereof. the law with regard to appreciation of evidence is well settled. the appellate court, even if it comes to a different finding with regard to the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. The present second appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Rent Controller Tribunal dt. 13th January, 1987 wherein the Tribunal modified the order of the Addl. Rent Controller and held that the rate of rent which was to be paid by the respondent was @ Rs. 55/- and not Rs. 125/- as was held by the Addl. Rent Controller, who passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that this appeal does not raise any question of law. Rate of rent is not a question of law. I find no force in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent as it was the basis on which the Rent Control Tribunal had set aside the finding of the Additional Rent Controller which from bare perusal of records seems untenable. The first order for deposit of rent was passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 5th July, 1985 under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In that order it was held that the monthly rent was Rs. 125/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The appeal of the respondent was dismissed on 6th August, 1985. Final order was passed on 18th September, 1986. On the basis of writing marked 'A' in deposition before the Additional Rent Controller, the appellant who appeared as AW-1 deposed that the rate of rent was Rs. 125/- per month. On mark 'A' it was admitted by the respondent that it was his signature. Mark 'A' was to the following effect:-

Main Jairam Kirayadar Ke Roop Me Makan Malik Brij Narain Sharma Wa Sat Narain Sharma Ke Makan Me 125/- Rupee Mahavar Ek Sal Ke Liye Liya Hai. Agar Meri Taraf Se Koi Galti Hogi To Mai Makan Chhor Doonga. Mane 23.2.77 Se Liya Hai.

3. When the respondent had admitted the signature at mark 'A', there was no reason not to believe the testimony of AW-1 in conjunction with Mark 'A' on which the respondent admittedly, signed in acceptance thereof. The law with regard to appreciation of evidence is well settled. The Appellate Court, even if it comes to a different finding with regard to the appreciation of evidence, will not lightly set aside the finding based on the evidence arrived at by the Trial Court. The Rent Control Tribunal has lightly set aside the finding of the Trial Court on the basis of the deposition/statement of Bengali Babu who appeared as RW-2. The presumption on the Part of the Rent Control Tribunal that Rent might have been paid in front of RW-2 is not supported by the testimony of RW-2. Rent Control Tribunal fell in error in supposing that it may be that rent was paid in the presence of Bengali Babu when there was no such suggestion either in examination in chief or in cross examination of said witness. I set aside the finding of the Rent Control Tribunal and restore the order of the Additional Rent Controller.

4. However, one month's time is granted to the respondent to comply with the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller.

Appeal is allowed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1999 Same Parties Sat NaraIn and Another vs JaIn Ram Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Vijender Jain, J. Acts & Sections Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 15(1)

Tenancy