Tenancy and Rent Recovery – Unregistered Rent Deed – Appellants sought recovery of rent based on unregistered rent deeds – High Court set aside decrees due to inadmissibility of unregistered documents – Supreme Court reversed High Court decision, emphasizing undisputed landlord-tenant relationship and tenant's admission of non-payment of rent – Decrees for arrears of rent restored with modifications to amounts due [Paras 1-16].

Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act – Admissibility of Unregistered Documents – Unregistered rent deeds cannot support primary claim but can be used to establish collateral facts – High Court failed to consider tenant's admission of non-payment and undisputed tenancy relationship – Supreme Court upheld decrees based on tenant's admissions and corroborative evidence [Paras 11-14].

Judicial Procedure – Evidence and Admission – Admissions by parties in pleadings or orally are best evidence – Supreme Court emphasized that unregistered rent deeds could be used to establish relationship of landlord and tenant and ascertain arrears of rent due – Decrees for arrears based on tenant's admissions restored [Paras 10, 13-15].

Decision: Appeals allowed, High Court's order set aside, decrees for recovery of rent by trial court and lower appellate court restored with modification of rent due amounts to Rs. 7200/- in total – No orders as to costs [Para 16].

Civil Procedure Code – Additional Evidence – Appellate Court should not admit additional evidence unless it is necessary to pronounce judgment or for substantial cause – Discretion should be exercised judicially and with reasons recorded in writing – Allowing additional evidence prior to hearing the appeal without application of mind renders the order inconsequential [Paras 25-41].

Evidence Act – Adverse Inference – Adverse inference for non-production of evidence must consider all facts and circumstances – Mere non-production of documents does not justify adverse inference unless party fails to comply with court's order to produce documents – Burden of proof lies on the party making factual averments [Paras 6-17].

Admissions – Legal Weight – Admissions are decisive unless withdrawn or proven erroneous – Failure to produce rebuttal evidence does not constitute admission – Admission must be clear and unambiguous, and the court must provide an opportunity for cross-examination [Paras 18-24].

Specific Relief Act – Declaratory Suit – Suit for declaration of title without seeking possession is not maintainable – Relief of declaration cannot be granted if consequential relief is omitted [Paras 43-46].

Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Second appeal can be entertained only on substantial questions of law – Such questions must materially affect the decision of the case – Erroneous findings of fact do not constitute substantial questions of law [Paras 47-50].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the High Court and first appellate court set aside – Suit dismissed for non-compliance with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act​​.

Criminal Procedure – Hearing on Sentence – Section 235(2) CrPC mandates that after conviction, the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard on the question of sentence – High Court’s failure to elicit relevant information from the accused or prosecution on sentencing violated the procedural requirement – Non-compliance with Section 235(2) vitiates the death sentence imposed [Paras 26-33].

Evidence and Sentencing – Psychological state of a convict awaiting death sentence must be considered – Courts have a duty to elicit relevant facts for proper sentencing – Mere formal questioning of the accused without effort to obtain substantial information is insufficient [Paras 26-33].

Sentencing Policy – Death sentence should be an exception, not the rule – Courts must provide special reasons for awarding death penalty, which can only be validly recorded if effective hearing as per Section 235(2) CrPC is conducted – High Court failed to follow correct procedure in enhancing the sentence from life imprisonment to death penalty [Paras 33-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed to the extent of setting aside the death sentence – Matter remitted to the High Court to follow Section 235(2) CrPC and pass fresh orders on sentencing – Conviction by High Court confirmed – High Court requested to pass fresh orders within six months​​.

Appointment on Deputation – Legal Right – Difference between transfer on deputation and appointment on deputation – Appellant was selected and offered appointment following due process – Cancellation of appointment offer without valid reason is arbitrary and violates Article 14 – Appellant has a right to join the post of Director, AICTE [Paras 11-15].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Any person selected for appointment through due process must be treated fairly and equally – Arbitrary cancellation of appointment offer is unconstitutional – High Court erred in not recognizing appellant's entitlement to the post [Paras 9-12].

Administrative Law – Terms of Deputation – Terms and conditions of deputation should be honored once accepted – Appellant accepted the terms including the pay scale – Respondent cannot withdraw the offer arbitrarily after acceptance [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of withdrawal of appointment and High Court order set aside – Respondents directed to accept appellant's joining for the post of Director, AICTE, for a period of one year on deputation – North Gujarat University to relieve the appellant and AICTE to accept his joining within one week of reporting​​.

Representing Advocates:

Nikhil Goel for the Appellant

Amitesh Kumar and Navin Prakash for the Respondents

Lease Cancellation – Public Purpose – State Government's order cancelling the lease and resuming possession for extension of the Allahabad High Court and the office of the Advocate General is valid under Clause 3(C) of the lease deed – No discrimination or violation of Article 14 as similar actions were taken in the past under similar circumstances [Paras 3-15].

Government Grants Act – Unfettered Discretion – Section 3 of the Government Grants Act grants the State unfettered discretion to impose conditions on its grants, which take effect notwithstanding any statutory or common law provisions – Lease terms, including resumption clauses, are valid and enforceable [Paras 10-14].

Resumption Procedure – State Government followed the proper procedure under Clause 3(C) of the lease deed – No additional legal procedures required for resumption beyond those specified in the lease – High Court's decision to the contrary set aside [Paras 17-20].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – State Government's cancellation of the lease and resumption of possession upheld – High Court's order preventing forcible dispossession set aside – Appellants given three months to hand over possession – State Government to issue fresh compensation cheques if necessary – If appellants fail to comply, State may take forcible possession​​.

Reinstatement and Departmental Enquiry – Employee acquitted on benefit of doubt must be dealt with under Clause 19.3(d) of Bipartite Settlement – Reinstatement deemed from the date of dismissal and placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry – No need for formal reinstatement before proceeding with the enquiry [Paras 13-15].

Disciplinary Procedure – Clause 19.3(c) and 19.3(d) – Differentiation in treatment of acquitted employees – Employee acquitted during trial is entitled to full pay and allowances minus subsistence; those acquitted on appeal get subsistence allowance during suspension – Shri Tiwary’s case falls under Clause 19.3(d), thus entitled to subsistence allowance only [Paras 12-15].

Employee Rights – Pay and Allowances – Post-acquittal, the employee is entitled to subsistence allowance during suspension, not full pay and allowances – Bank followed proper procedure in treating suspension and conducting departmental enquiry [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Orders of termination, and decisions of Single Judge and Division Bench of Patna High Court upheld – No order as to costs​​.

Representing Advocates:

Mohit Kumar Shah for the Appellant

Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deora, Rajesh Kumar, and Shri Ram Krishna for the Respondent

Fixation of Fair Rent – Market Value – Rent Controller and Appellate Authority fixed the fair rent for properties considering the market value of land at Rs. 65 lakhs per ground based on the classification report and other evidence – Concurrent findings on 'classification of building,' 'plinth area,' 'construction charges,' and 'basic amenities' upheld – Appeal allowed in part for re-evaluation of the market value of land considering prior determination for adjacent property [Paras 8-17].

Legal Consistency – Adjacent Property – Fair rent for adjacent property fixed at Rs. 25 lakhs per ground should be considered in current case despite pending appeal – Market value determination in adjacent property is relevant and should not be ignored by appellate authority [Paras 15-16].

Article 227 – High Court's Interference – High Court should have intervened under Article 227 to ensure consistent application of market value determination – Failure to consider adjacent property’s market value a ground for remand [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – Remitted to Appellate Authority to re-determine market value of land considering evidence and adjacent property valuation – Other findings on classification, depreciation, plinth area, construction charges, and basic amenities upheld – No order as to costs​​.

Representing Advocates:

Siddharth Bhatnagar, Pratik Jalan, Pavan Kr. Bansal, and T. Mahipal for the Appellant

K. Ramamurthi, P.B. Balaji, and A.T.M. Sampath for the Respondent

Land Acquisition – Compensation Assessment – Petitioner’s claim for enhanced compensation for acquired land was based on comparable sale deeds, but the claim was not substantiated with sufficient evidence – The application for redetermination of compensation under Section 28A was entertained despite petitioner’s failure to initially file a reference under Section 18 – Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' decisions which had adequately compensated the petitioner based on existing evidence [Paras 1-18].

Procedure under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act – Special provision intended to benefit the poor and inarticulate individuals who failed to seek reference under Section 18 – Petitioner, owning significant land, did not fall within this intended beneficiary class – No legal basis for further enhancement of compensation as sought by petitioner [Paras 5-6].

Claim of Substantial Justice vs. Technicalities – Supreme Court emphasized the need to balance technicalities and substantial justice – Found that the petitioner’s delayed appeals and failure to specify enhanced compensation demands indicated a lack of diligence rather than a mere technical shortfall [Paras 3, 12-17].

Decision:

Special Leave Petition dismissed – Supreme Court upheld lower court’s decisions on compensation – No further enhancement granted [Para 18].

Regulatory Fee – Validity and Reasonableness – The appellant challenged the enhanced license fees under the Delhi Race Course Licensing (Amendment) Rules 2001, contending excessive delegation of power and lack of quid pro quo – The Supreme Court upheld the fee as regulatory, not requiring strict quid pro quo, emphasizing the broad correlation between the fee and regulatory purpose [Paras 1-30].

Delegation of Legislative Power – The Court reiterated the principle that delegation of non-essential legislative functions is permissible provided there is sufficient legislative policy or guidance – Found the Mysore Race Courses Licensing Act 1952 and the Delhi Race Course Licensing Rules 1985 contained adequate guidelines for fee fixation [Paras 8-28].

Nature of the Impost – The Court differentiated between a fee and a tax, holding that the license fee in question was regulatory, aimed at controlling and supervising horse-racing activities, thus not requiring specific services in return but needing to be reasonable and not excessive [Paras 18-27].

Constitutional Challenge – The appellant’s late challenge to the constitutionality of Section 11(2) of the Mysore Race Courses Licensing Act 1952 was dismissed due to the unreasonable delay and the lack of substantial change in circumstances other than inflation-based fee revision [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision upholding the validity of the enhanced license fees and the underlying legislative provisions, imposing costs on the appellant [Para 30].