RAMESH KUMAR Vs. KESHO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Special leave granted.

(2.) The grievance of the appellant-tenant is that the High Court in the proceedings of revision while granting leave to the Respondent-landlord to plead certain subsequent events, had virtually accepted the pleadings as proof in itself of the allegations which according to the respondent entitled him to possession. The trial court had negatived the bona fides of the landlord's claim for possession. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is one thing to permit a party to urge certain subsequent events but quite another to assume, without more, that the facts so alleged are proved without the formality of an enquiry and recording of evidence. The proceedings in the High Court, says counsel, ceased to be revisional and assumed the character of a fresh trial on fresh grounds without an enquiry and trial of or evidence on those fresh grounds. Learned counsel says that pleading and proof of the subsequent events are two distinct stages and the High Court is in error in not keeping the two stages distinguished and in proceeding on the premise that the first stage could serve the purpose of the second also. It is further urged that the subsequent events now sought to be raised by the appellant himself before this court would, on considerations of comparative hardships, neutralise those pleaded by the respondent, even if they were true.

(3.) We may briefly recall the facts :