Mst. SAKINA BAI vs BALUCHISTAN CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
This appeal arose from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had set aside an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the respondent bank. The appellant landlord had sought eviction on grounds of personal bona fide requirement, material damage to the property, and default in rent payment. While the Rent Controller ordered eviction based solely on the default issue, the High Court reversed this decision on appeal, relying on fresh evidence regarding ledger entries in the bank's account books to prove payment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in relying on new evidence at the appellate stage without providing the appellant an opportunity to rebut it. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reliance on evidence without allowing the appellant to challenge it violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case, directing that the appellant be afforded a fair opportunity to rebut the evidence considered at the appellate stage.
- Can an appellate court rely on fresh evidence without affording the opposing party an opportunity to rebut it?
- Is a landlord entitled to an opportunity to rebut evidence introduced for the first time during an appeal in rent restriction proceedings?
- Does the failure to provide an opportunity for rebuttal of new evidence at the appellate stage warrant a remand of the case?
- Section 13, Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 15, Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
S.A. NUSRAT, J.-- This appeal, by leave of this Court, is from the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dated 10-11-1985 whereby the first appeal of the respondent under section 15 of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was allowed and the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller was set aside.
2. The dispute relates to the premises which have been in occupation of the respondent bank as tenant of the appellant since quite some time. The appellant applied for ejectment of the respondent from the disputed premises under section 13 of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on 25-9-1978 on the ground of personal bona fide requirement for her son, default in payment of rent from August, 1977 to January, 1978 and on the allegation that the respondent had caused material damage to the property. The application was resisted and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed in the rent case:-
(1) Whether the premises in question are required reasonably and in good faith for the use and occupation of applicant's son?
(2) Whether the respondent has impaired the premises in question?
(3) Whether the respondent has failed to tender the rent of premises since August, 1977?
(4) Relief?
The first two issues were decided against the appellant. As respects the third issue, the learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the evidence brought on the record, came to hold that the appellant had successfully proved default in payment of rent from August, 1977 to January, 1978.
Accordingly the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of the respondent on the ground of default alone.
3. The matter was then taken up in appeal by the respondent which was accepted as per impugned judgment.
4. Leave to appeal was granted, inter alia, to examine the contentions that the rent from August, 1977 to January, 1978 was in fact deposited by the respondent after passing of the order under] section 13 of Ordinance VI of 1959 as according to challan No.2312, such deposit was made on 19-8- 1978. The stand taken by the respondent was that rent was paid for the months of August, 1977 to January, 1978 through money orders, but it was alleged on behalf of the appellant that no money order coupons were produced in the Court. On such premises, it was contended that no case for exercise of discretion was made out in favour of the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant urged before us that in deciding the first appeal, the learned High Court had relied upon certain payments having been made to the appellant by the bank as shown in the ledger entries in the account books. Such evidence was believed by the learned High Court and in doing so, the appellant was given no opportunity to rebut the same. The learned counsel for the respondent was unable to controvert this factual aspect of the case. In the circumstances, the learned counsel agreed that the impugned judgment may be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned High Court with the direction that the appellant may be afforded necessary opportunity of rebutting the evidence adduced by the respondent at the appellate stage. This proposition appears to be satisfactory and in our view will meet the ends of justice.
6. In the circumstances the judgment of the learned High Court is set aside and it is directed that the appellant may be afforded necessary opportunity to rebut the evidence, which was freshly taken into consideration by the learned High Court at the appellate stage and if necessary, she may be allowed to adduce her own evidence. The appeal, in the circumstances, is allowed as indicated above. There will be, however, no order as to costs.