Q. What are the equivalent citations for Mohd. Yunus vs Gurubux Singh ?

The equivalence citation are(1995) SUPPL. 1 SCC 418 ; LQ/SC/1994/237 ;

Mohd. Yunus Vs. Gurubux Singh On 17 February, 1994

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Mohd. Yunus vs Gurubux Singh?

HONBLE JUSTICE M. K. MUKHERJEE, HONBLE JUSTICE S. MOHAN

Open iDraf

Mohd. Yunus v. Gurubux Singh

Mohd. Yunus
v.
Gurubux Singh

(Supreme Court Of India)

No | 17-02-1994

1. To ward off the allegation of non-payment of rent, the appellant pleaded that the rent had been sent by money-orders in the name of respondent - Gurubux Singh. In support of this, he produced Exhibit-E series together with Exhibit-C series. The High Court found, reversing the concurrent findings, these Exhibits would merely establish the name of the addressee - Gurubux Singh but there is nothing to indicate that it was addressed to the respondent - Gurubux Singh since the address of the respondent was not found in any one of the these documents. On the score, it has directed eviction

2. It is argued before us that the High Court was not correct in interfering with the factual findings under Section 100 of CPC. In any event, there is Oral evidence of the appellant-tenant who has categorically stated that the money-orders were sent to Gurubux Singh -the respondent herein. We are unable to agree with either of the submissions. Where there is a gross misappreciation of evidence which goes to the root of the matter, certainly the second appellate court can exercise its jurisdiction. Here the documents which are relied on by the appellant do not show that it was addressed to the respondent - Gurubux Singh. In order to establish the same, the postman should have been examined. The High Court is right in its conclusion. As regards the next contention, the mere ipse dixit, even without any cross-examination by this Court of the appellant, will not establish that the money-orders were addressed to the respondent. The evidence in this behalf is lacking. The appeal stands dismissed. No costs.

Advocates List

For

Bench List

HON'BLE JUSTICE M. K. MUKHERJEE

HON'BLE JUSTICE S. MOHAN

Eq Citation

(1995) SUPPL. 1 SCC 418

LQ/SC/1994/237

HeadNote

Rent Control and Eviction — Non-payment of rent — Proof of — Moneyorders sent by appellant tenant in name of respondent landlord — High Court found that these Exhibits would merely establish name of addressee but there was nothing to indicate that it was addressed to respondent since address of respondent was not found in any one of these documents — Held, where there was gross misappreciation of evidence which went to root of matter, certainly second appellate court could exercise its jurisdiction — Here documents relied on by appellant did not show that it was addressed to respondent — In order to establish same, postman should have been examined — High Court right in its conclusion — Mere ipse dixit of appellant tenant even without any cross-examination by Supreme Court would not establish that moneyorders were addressed to respondent — Evidence lacking