ivil Appeal No 855 of 1978
186 From the Judgment and Order dated 213
1978 of the Rajasthan High Court in SB Civil Second Appeal No 59 of 1978
Tapas Ray Sushil Kumar Jain Sudhanshu Atrey and LC Agrawalas for the Appellant
GL Sanghi Parmod Dayal AD Sangar Ajay K Jain and KK Jain for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN J
This appeal by special leave is by a tenant and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Second Appeal No 59 of 1978 confirming the judgment of the Appellate Court whereby the appellant was held liable to be evicted from the premises leased to him by the respondent on the ground of having parted with the possession of the premises
CMP No 906 of 1973 has been filed by the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for certain documents being received as additional evidence
In so far as the facts are concerned there is no con troversy whatever
In January 1963 the appellant took on lease from the respondent a building situate in Rasta Ka Gheewalan in the city of Jaipur
In the Deed of Rent execut ed by the appellant there was an express provision that he should not sublet the premises to anyone
However in March 1968 a social club known as the Lokpriya Social Club came to be opened in the premises and the members of the club began using the premises for playing cards chopar chess etc
every evening till about midnight or even till 1 am
The functioning of the club in the premises led to the respondent filing a suit against the appellant seeking his eviction on two grounds viz 1 sub letting the premises contrary to the terms of the lease deed and 2 conversion of the user of the premises from residential to non residen tial purposes
As it has been concurrently held by the first two courts that the premises had not been leased for resi dential purposes no further advertance is called for to the second ground on which the eviction was sought for
As regards the first ground the appellant did not dispute but on the other hand admitted the factum of the Lokpriya Social Club being opened in the leased premises in March 1968 and the club functioning 187 in the premises since then
He however contened that he had neither sublet for rent nor otherwise parted with the pos session of the premises to the club
His case was that he continued to have possession of the premises for doing business in gold jewellery and cloth on commission basis in a small portion of the building but being the founder of the club he had provided the club a room to have its office and a hall for the club members to assemble and play games such as cards chess chopar etc
In the trial of the suit the respondent examined him self and an Assistant in the office of the Registrar of Companies as witnesses on his side
The appellant examined himself and three other witnesses on his side to substanti ate his contentions
The Trial Court held that the respondent had failed to prove that the appellant had sublet the premises to the Lokpriya Social Club for rent and that the evidence only warranted an inference that the appellant had allowed the club to use the premises as a licencee and as such the appellant was not liable to be evicted
The Appellate Court while concurring with the Trial Court that the evidence did not establish any subletting of the premises for rent nevertheless held that there were adequate materials to hold that the appellant had parted with the possession of the premises in favour of the club and such parting of posses sion would amount to subletting within the meaning of the Act and as such the appellant was liable to be evicted
Consequently the Appellate Court passed a decree for evic tion against the appellant
The Second Appeal to the High Court by the appellant did not meet with success and hence he has approached this Court by way of appeal by special leave
Since the first ground on which eviction was sought for was the subletting of the premises to the Lokpriya Social Club the question whether the appellant was receiving any rent or not from the club had loomed large in the proceed ings before the Trial Court and the Appellate Court
The appellant s categoric stand that he was not receiving any rent from the Club and his permitting the club to use the premises was not for any monetary return could not be dis lodged by the respondent by specific materials
However after the appellant had filed this appeal the respondent has been able to obtain copies of the Managing Committee s reports balance sheets and auditor s reports of the club for the years 1968 to 1976
It is relevant to mention here that the club has been registered as a limited company under the Indian 
As a registered company it had to prepare audited balance 188 sheets every year and present the same together with the Auditor s Report to the members of the club and have the same approved
The respondent seeks permission of the Court to have the Managing Committee s reports the Auditor s Reports and the balance sheets filed as additional evidence in the appeal and for that purpose he has filed CMP No 90679 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently opposed the filing of additional documents by the respondent as additional evidence on the ground these documents ought to have been filed before the trial court or the Appellate Court and hence they cannot be filed now
It was also contended that if additional docu ments are received in evidence at this stage the appellant will have no opportunity to adduce contraevidence
We will take up the question whether CMP No 90679 should be al lowed or not for consideration later
We will first examine whether even without these documents the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Court and confirmed by the High Court can be sustained or not
It may be recalled that the decree for eviction against the appellant has been passed on the ground that though subletting of the premises for rent has not been proved yet the appellant must be held to have parted with possession of a portion of the premises to the club and such parting with possession would attract Section 131e of the Rajasthan Premises Control of Rent  Eviction Act 1950 for short the Act
On a reading of sub clausee of Section 131 it is seen that a tenant will render himself liable for evic tion if he has assigned sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without the permission of landlord Consequently even if a tenant parts with possession of the whole or any part of the premises without assigning or subletting the premises he would still be liable to be evicted from the premises under the Act
If from this perspective the user of the premises by the club is examined it can certainly be held that the appellant had parted with the possession of the premises as envisaged in clause e of sub section 1 of Section 13
This conclusion is warranted by several factors
Admittedly when the club began to function in the leased premises a name board carrying the name of the Club came to be exhibited in the premises
It is also admitted that the members of the club assemble at the premises everyday and play cards and other indoor games from evening till about midnight
Though the appellant would say that the club members cannot have access to the premises unless he or in his absence his brother or son opens the premises there is no evidence to show that the appellant had at any time exercised his right to exclusive 189 possession and kept the premises locked and denied the members of the club entry to the premises
That apart there is a significant fact which has escaped the notice of the Appellate Court and the High Court viz that the club has its registered office at the leased premises
Section 146 of the Indian enjoins every company to have a regis tered office to which all communications and notices may be addressed
Once a company has a registered office it is bound to comply with several provisions of the  viz a the register of members is to be kept there Section 163 b the right of inspection has to take place there Section 163 c the register of directions etc is also to be kept there Section 303 d the account books are to be maintained there unless the directors decide otherwise Section 20 e the register of mortgages and charges and copies of registered documents are also to be kept there Section 143 and the right of inspection of them is to be exercised there Section 144
f service of documents should be effected there
These requirements of the Act have to be complied with by the club by virtue of its registered office being situated in the leased premises
The appellant cannot prevent the club from performing its statutory duties so long as the club has its registered office in the premises
Hence this factor also warrants the view that the appellant had parted with possession of the major portion of the premises to the club
In such circum stances we see no merit in the contention of the appellant that the user of a portion of the premises by the club is only of a permissive nature and that there was no parting with possession of the premises to the club
The Appellate Court and the High Court were therefore right in holding that the user of the premises by the club would amount to the appellant having parted with possession of a portion of the premises as contemplated under Section 131e of the Act
Learned counsel for the appellant referred us to Smt
Rajbir Kaur  Anr
vs Ms section Chokesiri  Co JT and argued that even if the appellant had conferred rights of exclusive possession to the club over a portion of the leased premises the club would not be a sub lessee but only a licencee of the appellant
We are unable to accept this argument because of various factors
In the first place in Smt
Rajbir Kaur supra it was clearly found that in the documents which had been brought about between the parties
the occupants were inducted into possession only as licencees and not as lessees
Secondly the case arose under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act in which Section 13 refers only to a tenant transferring his right under the lease or subletting the entire building or any portion thereof whereas in Section 131e of the Rajasthan Premises Control 190 of Rent and Eviction Act with which we are concerned there is reference to a tenant assigning subletting or otherwise parting with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without the permission of the landlord
In such circumstances the judgment in Smt
Rajbir Kaur  Anr supra cannot be of any avail to the appellant
Coming now to CMP No 90679 filed by the respondent for receiving certain documents as additional evidence we have already stated that these documents consist of the reports of the Managing Committee the balance sheets and the auditor s reports for the years 1968 to 1976
Though there are as many as 25 documents filed along with the application they really constitute 8 sets of documents pertaining to the period 1963 to 1976 except for the year 1969
The purpose of filing these documents is to show that in each of the years in question it has been stated in the auditor s report that the rent of the club premises has not been determined and provided for as the matter is under litigation
Mr Sanghi learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the explanation given in the auditor s re ports for provision not having been made in the balance sheet for payment of rent by the club was not because the club had been allowed free user of the premises without payment of rent but because there was litigation regarding the user of the premises by the club
The further argument was that the auditor s report clearly showed that the club was bound to pay rent to the appellant for the user of the premises but such payment was being deferred in view of the pendency of the eviction suit between the respondent and the appellant
Mr Sanghi stated that there cannot be any objec tion to the additional documents being received in evidence because they were reports and balance sheets submitted by the club of which the appellant is a member to the Regis trar of Companies and hence there is no question of the appellant being taken by surprise by the contents of the documents
On the other hand the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the respondent is not entitled under law to file documents by way of additional evidence at this belated stage of matters because the docu ments were in existence even when the parties went to trial before the Trial Court and as such the respondent should have acted diligently and either summoned for the documents from the office of the Registrar of Companies or obtained copies of them and filed them in Court during the trial or atleast when the matter was before the first Appellate Court
On a consideration of the matter we think the objections raised 191 by the appellant s counsel for the filing of additional evidence by the respondent in the appeal proceedings before us merits acceptance
It is true that the documents sought to be filed by way of additional evidence are indisputably the audited balance sheets and reports submitted by the club but even so the fact remains that all the documents could have been obtained and filed by the respondent before the Trial Court itself since the judgment had been rendered by the Trial Court only on 222
Even if the respondent was not able to file the documents before the Trial Court he could have filed the documents before the Appellate Court and sought its permission to file them as additional evi dence
Even before the High Court there was no attempt in this behalf
No satisfactory explanation has been offered by the respondent for having failed to produce the documents before the Courts below or the High Court
In such circum stances we see no justification to allow CMP No 90679 and permit the respondent to file the documents in question as additional evidence in the proceedings
Accordingly CMP No 90679 is dismissed
In spite of the dismissal of CMP No 90679 since we have sustained the view taken by the first Appellate Court and the High Court that the appellant had parted with pos session of a major portion of the leased premises in favour of the Lokpriya Social Club and such parting with possession would attract the operation of Section 13 1 e of the Act we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly it will stand dismissed
The appellant is however given three months time from today to vacate and deliver vacant posses sion of the premises to the respondent subject to his filing an undertaking in the usual terms within a period of four weeks from today
There will be no order as to costs
RSS Appeal  Petition dismissed


Summary:
The petitioner was detained under an order dated 17 th September 1988 made by the detaining authority under sub section 2 of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activ i ties Act 1985 with a view to prevent him from acting in a ny manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
T he grounds of detention mentioned five offences register ed against him with police records out of which the first o ne under section 324 IPC was stated to have been compromised t he second under section 332 IPC and the third under sections 148 and 3 07 IPC respectively were stated to be pending trial the four th under section 302 IPC was stated not proved while the fif th under section 302 IPC was stated to be in the court
The Government approved the said order on 21st Septe m ber 1988
The detenu submitted his representation dat ed 22nd September 1988 to the first respondent who by h is order dated 30th September 1988 rejected the same
He thereupon filed this petition under Article 32 of t he Constitution
It was contended for the petitioner that he has be en acquitted even on 26th August 1988 in the case shown at serial No 2 in the Table appended to the grounds of dete n tion and on 6th June 1988 in the case shown at Serial N o 3 that this material and vital fact of his acquittal in t he said cases had not been placed before the detaining author i ty and this non placing and the consequent non considerati on of the said material likely to influence the mind of t he detaining authority vitiates the subjective satisfaction a nd invalidates the detention order that the names of his s o called associates were nowhere disclosed which fact wou ld show either the authority did not know as to who the se associates were or knowing their names has refrained fr om furnishing it to the detenu thereby disabling him to ma ke his effective representation and 44 that the grounds of detention otherwise were vague or def i cient
For the respondent it was contended that each activ i ty of the petitioner was a separate ground of detention a nd that the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in the sa id cases was of no consequence
Allowing the writ petition HELD The requisite subjective satisfaction the form a tion of which is a condition precedent to passing of a detention order will get vitiated if material or vit al facts which would have bearing on the issue and weighed t he satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the oth er and influenced his mind are either withheld or suppressed by the sponsoring authority or ignored and not considered by the detaining authority before issuing the detention orde r 51D E In the instant case at the time when the detaini ng authority passed the detention order the vital fact of acquittal of the detenu in cases mentioned at serial Nos 2 and 3 had not been brought to his notice and on the oth er hand it was withheld and the detaining authority was giv en to understand that the trial of those cases was pendin g
This non placing of the material fact resulting in no n application of the mind of the detaining authority to t he said fact has vitiated the requisite subjective satisfa c tion rendering the impugned detention order invalid
T he same is therefore set aside
The detenu be set at liber ty forthwith
51E F G H SK Nizamuddin vs State of West Bengal   Suresh Mahato vs The District Magistrate Burdwan Ors AIR 1975 SC 728 Asha Devi vs Additional Secretary to the Government of Gujarat  Anr  and Si ta Ram Somani vs State of Rajasthan  Ors referred to
Shiv Rattan Makim vs Union of India  Ors 1985 Sup p 3 SCR 843 and Subharta vs State of West Bengal  distinguished