Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    CIVIL APPEAL NO.11337/2011

FATEH SINGH (D) THR. LRS.                     Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

HARI CHAND & ORS.                            Respondent(s)   J U D G M E N T

   KURIAN JOSEPH, J. 1. The appellants have challenged the judgment dated 30th October, 2009 in second appeal being RSA No.116A/1996 passed by the High Court of Delhi. The matter pertains to eviction.  Though  the  learned  Senior  Counsel  has strenuously made a very persuasive attempt to canvass for the  proposition  that  the  High  Court  exceeded  in  its jurisdiction  in  re-considering  the  whole  case  on re-appreciation of evidence, and upsetting the findings rendered  by  the  Court  of  First  Appeal,  we  find  it difficult to accept the same. 2. Perversity was the only substantial question of law framed and  pressed before  the High  Court. There  is a specific  averment  in  para  6  of  the  plaint  that  the appellants had been evicted from the premises but were re-inducted and permitted to stay for a short while to

Page 2

2

have  the  marriage  of  the  daughter  performed  in  the premises. But thereafter, they refused to vacate and that necessitated  the  filing  of  the  Suit.   This  specific averment is not denied in the written statement and no issue in that regard has been framed also. It is also a fact that no rent whatsoever has been collected by Sh. Chunnamul  who  according  to  the  appellants  is  the landlord.   No  doubt,  in  the  year  2011,  during  the pendency of these proceedings, the appellants deposited the rent from the year 1982 to 2011 in the name of Sh. Chunnamul who expired as far back as in the year 1979. In the above background, such deposit will not take the appellants anywhere. The appellants did not examine the munshi of Chunnamul to whom they have allegedly paid the rent  prior  to  1982.   It  is  shocking  as  to  how  such weighty  evidence  as  rightly  appreciated  by  the  trial Court has been ignored by the First Appellate Court. 3. Having analysed such perversity, we are of the view that  the  High  Court  was  well  within  its  jurisdiction under  Section  100  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  in restoring  the  decree  of  eviction  passed  by  the  trial Court. 4. Having realized the situation, Mr. Keshav Dayal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, on

Page 3

3

humanitarian grounds requested that the appellants may be granted  a  period  of  minimum  two  years  to  vacate  the premises.  Mr.  Nidhesh  Gupta,  learned  Senior  Counsel, appearing for the respondents submitted that this is a litigation which started in the year 1982 and the whole family of the respondents is actually getting suffocated in the small premises and, therefore, only a short time may  be  granted  to  the  appellants  for  shifting  and re-locating to other premises. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that time up to 31st December, 2018 would be reasonable in the peculiar facts of this case.  Therefore, while dismissing the Civil Appeal, the appellants  are  granted  time  up  to  31st December,  2018 subject  to  the  appellants  filing  usual  undertaking  in this behalf  before this  Court within  a period  of one month stating therein that they will vacate the premises on  or  before  31st December,  2018.   They  shall  also undertake that they will surrender vacant possession to the respondents herein without any other objection.  The appellants  will  not  induct  any  other  person  in  the premises and the whole premises occupied by them will be surrendered to respondent No.1 on or before 31st December, 2018.  The undertaking shall also state the names of all

Page 4

4

major members of the family residing in the premises as on today.   6. We  make  it  clear  that  other  than  the  order  as above,  the  respondents  in  the  peculiar  facts  of  this case, will not make any other claim with regard to money, use and occupation charges etc. till 31st December, 2018. The appellants are free to withdraw whatever amount they have deposited before any forum.  7. The Civil Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

…..…..........................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

…...............................J.          [A.M. KHANWILKAR]

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 15, 2017.