This revision has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2012, passed by Learned Special Judge (Ayodhya Prakaran)/Additional District Judge/ Judge, Small Causes Courts, Lucknow in SCC suit No. 37 of 2011, by which the plaintiffs' suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation has been decreed.
Sr. Advocate, Sri Jaideep Mathur, assisted by Sri Saurabh Lavania, Advocate has put his appearance on behalf of the opposite parties/ landlords. Heard Sr. Advocate Sri M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Jaideep Mathur, Sr. Advocate learned counsel for the opposite parties and gone through the records.
Admittedly, the opposite parties are the landlords of Qidwai Bhawan house No. 17/23-1 at Picnic Spot Road, Indira Nagar, Lucknow, in which the revisionist is the tenant since May, 2001. Initially, the rent was Rs. 2725/- per month, which was later on increased and admittedly the rate of rent is Rs. 3300/- per month since 2008. It is also undisputed that the defendant/revisionist did not pay rent after March, 2009. The only point assailed before this Court was that while granting damages for use and occupation, the Judge, Small Causes Courts has decreed the same @ Rs. 10,000/- per month, which is more than three times than the agreed rent. Learned Counsel for the respondents, straightway, submitted that this part of the judgment is perverse. The learned Judge, Small Causes Courts has increased the amount of damages to more than three times, without any discussions or without any basis of enhancement of the amount of damages for use and occupation. This part of the judgment is obviously perverse.
The word 'perverse' has been defined as deliberately departing from, what is normal and reasonable. It obviously means unreasonableness and irrational.
The basic requirements of rules of natural justice are that the reasons must be recorded and evidence must be discussed, so as to assure that the authority concerned has consciously applied its mind to the facts of record. It also aids the appellate or revisional authority or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136, to see whether the authority concerned has acted fairly and justly to mete out justice to the aggrieved person. The reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. It is implicit that the principles of natural justice or fair play require recording of germane and precise relevant reasons as a part of fair procedure. It is the basic requirement of administrative law for administrative bodies and even domestic enquiries to apply strict rules of the evidence when an authority has received evidence and placed it on record. Acceptable material facts must form part of the order. The material before a Court of law must be germane and relevant to the facts in issue. Even when there is only circumstantial evidence which may not furnish the proof, inference from the evidence and circumstances must be carefully examined and incorporated, in such a fashion that the judicial order must be distinguished from conjectures or speculation. There must be evidence, direct or circumstantial, to deduce necessary inferences, in proof of the facts in issue. There can be no inferences, unless there are objective proved facts, direct or circumstantial, from which to infer the other fact which it is sought to establish. The "standard of proof" is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but the preponderance of probabilities tending to draw an inference that the fact must be more probable. Standard of proof, however, cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula. The probative value could be gauged from the facts and circumstances in a given case. Paragraph 19 of volume 17 of Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition at page 16, which reads thus:-
"Standard of Proof- To succeed on any issue the party bearing the legal burden of proof must (1) satisfy a Judge or jury of the likelihood of the truth of his case by adducing a greater weight of evidence than his opponent, and (2) adduce evidence sufficient to satisfy them to the required standard or degree of proof. The standard differs in criminal and civil cases.
In civil cases, the standard of proof is satisfied on a balance of probabilities. However, even within formula variations in subject matter or in allegations will affect the standard required; the more serious the allegation, for example fraud, crime or professional misconduct, the higher will be the required degree of proof, although it will not reach the criminal standard.
In criminal cases, the standard requirement of the prosecution is proof beyond reasonable doubt. This standard is also requisite in cases of committal for contempt, and in pension claims cases.
In matrimonial cases, it seems that proof on balance of probabilities is sufficient.
Once a matter is established beyond reasonable doubt it must be taken for all purposes of law to be a fact, as there is no room for a distinction between what is found by inference from the evidence and what is found as a positive fact."
When two views are plausible, the view being taken, must have some content of plausibility in it and without the same, the other view cannot be countenanced, in law, as a plausible alternative. Moreover, the presumption, is not, in itself evidence but only makes a prima facie case for party, in whose favour it exists. It is a rule concerning evidence. It indicates the person on whom the burden of proof lies. When presumption is conclusive, it obviates the production of any other evidence to dislodge the conclusion to be drawn on proof of certain facts. But when it is rebuttable it only points out the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence on the facts presumed, and when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed the purpose of presumption is over. Then the evidence will determine the true nature of the fact to be established. The rules of presumption are deduced from enlightened human knowledge and experience and are drawn from the connection, relation and coincidence of facts and circumstances.
Admittedly, the disputed building is beyond the purview of Uttar Pradesh Act No. XIII of 1972 and notice for termination of tenancy and payment of rent under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act has been served upon the revisionist.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist also submitted that except on this score, the judgment need not be disturbed and the revision may be disposed of. However, he sought some time to the revisionist to vacate the premises, which was agreed to by the consent of the learned counsel for the other side, in the open court, to be extended up to 30.04.2013.
The revision is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the revisionist/tenant to pay or deposit the entire amount of rent due, and damages from the date of institution of suit till 30.04.2013 before the learned Trial Court @ Rs. 3300/- per month within thirty days from today and, shall file an undertaking, without delay, to the effect that he shall vacate the premises and deliver its peaceful possession to the opposite parties, latest by 30.04.2013 and, shall not cause any damage to the disputed premises, nor shall create any third party interest. Failing any of these two conditions, the revisionist shall have to vacate the premises, forthwith. It is, however, made clear that the revisionist/tenant has to pay to the opposite parties or deposit in the learned trial court, the rent and damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 3300/- per month.
With these observations, the revision stands decided. The judgment and decree passed by Learned Trial Court for eviction is confirmed and, in as much as it relate to recovery of rent and damages for use and occupation it is modified, as hereinabove and the rate of rent and damages for use and occupation is fixed at Rs. 3,300/- per month, which was the agreed rent between the parties.
Order Date :- 12.12.2012 Nitesh