Allowed

Pawan Katoch v. Kesri Devi

Himachal Pradesh HC12 May 2015CR/83/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition against a rent controller order and appellate authority decision holding a tenant liable for rent from 2003, the High Court allowed the petition, concluding that the lessor's admission that the let commenced on 1.4.2006 and remained unexplained bound the respondent and set apart the earlier period.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; petition limited to period w.e.f. 1.4.2006; Rent Controller directed to calculate arrears and costs mutually borne.

Pawan Katoch Vs Kesri Devi — Landlord and Tenant | Himachal Pradesh HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Civil Revision No. 83 of 2014.

¶3

Judgment reserved on: 7.5.2015

¶4

Date of decision: May 12, 2015.

¶5

Sh. Pawan Katoch …… Petitioner Vs. Smt. Kesri Devi ….. Respondent Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

¶7

For the petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate.

¶8

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

¶9

This petition at the behest of the erstwhile tenant seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Rent Controller as affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority holding him liable for payment of rent, w.e.f. 1.8.2003 to 31.8.2007 (except the rent paid). 2. The simple case of the petitioner is that the learned Courts below have ignored the admission of PW-1 husband and power of attorney holder of landlady i.e. respondent No.1, who in clear and unequivocal terms had admitted that the premises in question had been let out to the petitioner only on 1.4.2006. The affect of this admission is that the petitioner would be liable to pay rent w.e.f. 1.4.2006 onwards.

¶10

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

¶11

…2…

¶12

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

¶13

Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through cross-examination of PW-1 wherein he has in no uncertain terms unequivocally and clearly admitted that the premises in question had been let out to the petitioner only on 1.4.2006 and has further stated that he had received the rent for the period August and October, 2006, which was paid to him through cheque.

¶14

It is more than settled that admission is the best piece of evidence against a person making it. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act defines expression ‘admission’ as a statement oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with admission and shifting of burden of proof in Avadh Kishore Dass vs. Ram Gopal and others AIR 1979

¶15

SC 861 held as under:

¶16

“23. Further, what is more important, in cross-examination, the defendant was confronted with this declaration in the will. He unreservedly admitted that what was stated in the will, was correct. It is true that evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong, but they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them or his representative-in-interest. Unless shown or explained to be wrong, they are an efficacious proof of the facts admitted. Here, the defendant, far from explaining the admission or declaration made by the deceased Mahant, under whom he (defendant) claims, has affirmed it, that the entire property in suit is the absolute property of the God, Thakurji as a juristic person. It is, therefore, too late in the day for the defendant to wriggle out of the same. It cannot be said that the defendant had inadvertently affirmed the correctness of the admission/declaration

¶17

…3…

¶18

made in the aforesaid will by the deceased Mahant. It was a conscious admission…”

¶19

No doubt, in the backdrop of Section 31 of the Indian

¶20

Evidence Act, the evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong; but then they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof placing it on the person making the admissions or his representative-in-interest. Unless shown or explained to be wrong, they are an efficacious proof of facts admitted.

¶21

Phipson in his law of evidence (1963 Edn.) Page 678, has observed that the weight of an admission depends on the circumstances under which it is made and these circumstances may always be proved to impeach or enhance its credibility. The effect of admission is that it shifts the onus on the person admitting the fact on the principle that what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so, and until the presumption is rebutted, the fact admitted must be taken to be established. Therefore, the admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon and though not conclusive is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous.

¶22

The respondent has not cared to explain this admission, the onus of which was now upon her. She failed to adduce material to show the contrary. The respondent was required to adduce material to show to the contrary. Such material had to be of clinching nature so as to outweigh the admission. The learned Courts below have not at all considered this aspect of the matter and have therefore, not proceeded in the correct direction.

¶23

…4…

¶24

The learned Courts below have committed gross illegality and irregularity in ignoring a vital piece of admission, which in absence of being explained or having been shown to be wrong was binding upon the respondent.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed. Orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority are accordingly set-aside and the petition filed by the respondent under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act shall be limited to the period w.e.f. 1.4.2006 onwards only. The learned Rent Controller shall calculate the arrears of rent, if any, w.e.f. 1.4.2006 uptil 31.8.2007 and the petitioner shall be liable to pay the same in accordance with law. The parties to bear their own costs.

¶26

May 12, 2015. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ), (GR) Judge

Pawan Katoch v. Kesri Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Katoch v. Kesri Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lashkari Ram Vs State of Hp

Surjit Singh Vs State of Hp

Nek Ram Vs Finance Commissioner (Appeals)

Ramesh Kumar Vs Rakesh Kumar

Ram Singh Vs State of Hp

Narender Kumar Vs State