SRI CHAND GUPTAversusGULZAR SINGH AND ANR.

A                          SRI CHAND GUPTA
                                   v.
                         GULZAR SINGH AND ANR.

                                 OCTOBER 22, 1991

B           (K. RAMASWAMY AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.).

            Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Se.ction 14(b }--Sub-letting-Eviction
    Petition-Eviction order by Rent Controller aiid Tribunaf-Order based on
    inadmissible evide11ce--Appraisal of evidence, inteiference with concu"ent
C   findings of fact and dismissal of Eviction .Petition by High Court held jus-
    tified.

          Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 18.

          Admission--Eviction proceedings--Admission by tenant's brother in
D an affidavit before Income Tax Authorities as to exclusive possession held
    not binding on the tenant.
           The appellant-landlord filed an application under Section 14(1)(b)
    of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for ejectment of the respondents and
    the three courts concurrently. found that the respondent was the sole
E   tenant. Relying on an atlidavit filed by tenant's brother before Income Tax
    authorities in which he claimed exclusive possession as tenant, the Rent
    Controller and the Tribunal concluded that the admission made by the
    tenant's brother was binding on the tenant as a result of which sub-letting
    by tenant was proved and consequently allowed the landlord's eviction
    petition.
F
          But the High Court dismissed the eviction petition by holding that
    since the admission made by tenant's brother was not binding on the
    tenant, the finding of sub-letting by tenant was vitiated in law because it
    was based on inadmissible evidence.
G          In appeal to this court it was contended on behalf of the landlord
    that (i) the admission made by tenant's brother was binding on the tenant
    under section 18 of the Evidence Act; (ii) the High Court erred in
    interfering with the concurrent finding of fact.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
H                                      538
                                                  ..

                                S. C.GUPTAv. GULZARSINGH                     539

             HELD: 1. Section 18 of the Evidence Act postulates that statements · A
       made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom
       the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or
       impliedly authorised by him to make them, are admissions. Equally·
       statement made by a person who has any proprietary or pecuniary interest
       in the subject matter of the proceedings or persons having derivative
       interest make statements during the continuance of the interest also are
       admissions. [540 H, 541 A-B]

             2. In the instant case, admittedly, the respondent-tenant was not a
       party to the affidavit signed by bis brother. Therefore, the admission made
       by his brother that be is the tenant in exclusive possession of the demised C
       premises does not bind the respondent-tenant. Once it is found that
       respondent alone is the tenant, his brother cannot claim to have any
       pecuniary or derivative interest in the demised premises. He is not an .
       agent of his tenant-brother. Since the admission made by tenant's brother
       was inadmissible and not binding on the tenant, the High Court rightly
       held that the finding of sub-letting or parting with possession of the D
       premises in dispute was vitiated in law as it was primarily based 'on
       inadmissible evidence. Consequently, it was open to the High Court to
       re-examine and reappreciate the evidence on record. (541 8-E]

               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 849 of                E
       1987.

~ ¥-        From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.1985 of the Delhi Jfigh
       Court in S.AO. (Second Appeal From Order) no. 295of1981.

               K.R. Nagaraja, R.S. Hegde and C.B. Nath Babu for the Appellant:
                                                                                    F
               M.L. Bhargava and Randhir Jain for the Respondents.

               The following Order of the Court was delivered:

             The appellant landlord had filed an application under Sec. 14(i)(b)
       of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the 'Act') for ejectment of   G
       the respondents. All the three courts concurrently found that Guizar Singh
       was the sole tenant. The Rent Controller and the Tribunal found that he
       sublet the demised premises to Avtar Singh, his brother and therefore
       ordered ejectment. The High Court found that the tenant was in exclusive
       ppssession of the premises bearing No. W: Z. 258/4, Subash Bazar, N angal    H
    540                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1991] SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A Raya, New Jail Road, New Delh~ and that he did not sublet the premises            ,.
    to Avtar Singh. On that premise the petition for ejectment was dismissed.
    Thus this appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

        Shri Nagaraja, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that
  the High Court has committed a gross error in interfering with the concur-
B rent finding of fact recorded by the Addi. Rent Controller and the Rent
  Control Tribunal that the tenant, Guizar Singh has sublet the premises in
  question to his brother, Avtar Singh and that it is not open fo the High
  Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. He placed reliance        ~
  on Sec. 18 of the Evidence Act and said that in an· affidavit filed by A vtar
  Singh before Income-Tax Authorities he claime.d exclusive possession as a
C tenant and that, therefore, the admission made by him would be binding on
  Guizar Singh. The Addi. Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal
  relying upon this admission of Avtar Singh and other oral evidence con-
  cluded that Avtar Singh alone was in exclusive possession and thatJ there-
  fore, subletting was proved as a fact. We find no substance in the
  contention. Section 18 of the Evidence Act reads as under:-
D
                "18. Admission by party to proceeding or his agent; by suitor in
                representative character; by party interested in subject-matter;
                by person from whom interest derived. - Statements made by a
                party to the proceedings, or by an agent to any such party,
                whom the CO!lrt regards, under the circumstances of the case,
E               as expressly or impliedly authorised by him to made them, are
                admissions;

                Statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a repre-
                sentative character, are not admissions, unless they were made
                while the party making them held that character.
F
                Statements made by -

                (1) persons whom have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in
                the subject matter of the proceeding and who make the state-
                ment in their character of persons so interested, or
G               (2) persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived
                their interest in the subject matter of the suit,
                are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the
                interest of the persons making the statement."

          Section 18 postulates that statements made by a party to the
H
                       S. C. GUPTAv. GULZARSINGH                     541
 proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, A
 under the circumstances of the.case, as expressly or impliedly authorised
 by him to make them, are admissions. Equally statement made by a person
 who has an proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the
 proceedings ,or persons having derivative interest make statements during
 the continuance of the interest also are admissions. In this case, admitted-
 ly, Guizar Singh was not a party to the .affidavit signed by Avtar Singh. B
 Therefore, the admission made by Avtar Singh that he is the tenant in
 exclusive possession of the demised premises does not bind Guizar Singh.
 In view of the plea and stand of the appellant, Avtar Singh cannot claim to
 have any pecuniary interest or any joint interest alongwith Guizar Singh in
 the demised premises. Once it is found that Guizar Singh alone is the
 tenant, as admittedly pleaded by the appellant, A vtar Singh cannot claim C
 to have any pecuniary or derivative interest in the demised premises. He is
 not an agent of Guizar Singh. Under those circumstances, as rightly found
 by the High Court, that the admission made by Avtar Singh in the affidavit
 is inadmissible and does not bind Guizar Singh. Once that admission is
 excluded from consideration, there is no other evidence worth accepting to
 conclude that Avtar Singh was in exclusive possession as a tenant. The D
 High Court rightly held that the finding of subletting or parting with pos-
 session of the premises in dispute was vitiated in law as it was primarily
 based on inadmissible evidence. Having found the finding vitiated, it was
 open to the High Court to re-examine and reappreciate the evidence on
 record. On reappraisal it disbelieved the oral evidence. We do not find any
 error in such reappraisal. It is then sought to be contended that Guizar E
·Singh had other business and it implies that he is not in exclusive posses-
 sion of the demised premises. We find no force in the contention. It may be
 that Guizar Singh had other business but that does not lead to the con-
 clusion that Guizar singh is not in exclusive possession of the demised
 premises as tenant or that he sublet the premises to Avtar Singh.
                                                                           F
     Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances,
without costs.

T.N.A.                                                 Appeal dismissed.