Appeal No 849 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 2491985 of the Delhi High Court in SAO  Second Appeal From Order No 295 of 1981
KR Nagaraja RS Hegde and CB Nath Babu for the Appel lant
M L Bhargava and Randbit Jain for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered The appellant landlord had filed an application under Sec
141b of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 for short the Act  for ejectment of the respondents
All the three courts concurrently found that Gulzar Singh was the sole tenant
The Rent Controller and the Tribunal found that he sublet the demised premises to Avtar Singh his brother and therefore ordered ejectment
The High Court found that the tenant was in exclusive possession of the premises bearing No WZ 2584 Subash Bazar Nangal 540 Raya New Jail Road New Delhi and that he did not sublet the premises to Avtar Singh
On that premise the petition for ejectment was dismissed
Thus this appeal by special leave under article 136 of the Constitution
Shri Nagaraja learned counsel for the appellant has con tended that the High Court has committed a gross error in interfering with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Addl
Rent Controller and the Rent control Tribunal that the tenant Gulzar Singh has sublet the premises in question to his brother Avtar Singh and that it is not open to the High court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact
He placed reliance on Sec 18 of the Evidence Act and said that in an affidavit filed by Avtar singh before Income Tax Authorities he claimed exclusive possession as a tenant and that therefore the admission made by him would be binding on Gulzar Singh
The Addl
Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal relying upon this admission of Avtar Singh and other oral evidence concluded that Avtar Singh alone was in exclusive possession and that therefore subletting was proved as a fact
We find no substance in the contention
Section 18 of the Evidence Act
reads as under 18
Admission by party to proceeding or his agent by suitor in representative character by party interested in subject matter by person from whom interest derived
State ments made by a party to the proceedings or by an agent to any such party whom the court regards under the circumstances of the case as expressly or impliedly authorised by him to made them are admissions
Statements made by parties to suits suing or sued in a representative character are not admissions unless they were made while the party making them held that character
Statements made by 1 persons whom have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceeding and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested or 2 persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject matter of the suit are admissions if they are made during the continuance of the inter est of the persons making the statement
 Section 18 postulates that statements made by a party to the 541 proceeding or by an agent to any such party whom the Court regards under the circumstances of the case as expressly or impliedly authorised by him to make them are admissions
Equally statement made by a person who has an proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceedings or persons having derivative interest make statements during the continuance of the interest also are admissions
In this case admittedly Gulzar Singh was not a party to the affidavit signed by Avtar Singh
Therefore the admis sion made by Avtar Singh that he is the tenant m exclusive possession of the demised premises does not bind Gulzar Singh
In view of the plea and stand of the appellant Avtar Singh cannot claim to have any pecuniary interest or any joint interest alongwith Gulzar Singh in the demised prem ises
Once it is found that Gulzar Singh alone is the ten ant as admittedly pleaded by the appellant Avtar Singh cannot claim to have any pecuniary or derivative interest in the demised premises
He is not an agent of Gulzar Singh
Under those circumstances as rightly found by the High Court that the admission made by Avtar Singh in the affida vit is inadmissible and does not bind Gulzar Singh
Once that admission is excluded from consideration there is no other evidence worth accepting to conclude that Avtar Singh was in exclusive possession as a tenant
The High Court rightly held that the finding of subletting or parting with possession of the premises in dispute was vitiated in law as it was primarily based on inadmissible evidence
Having found the finding vitiated it was open to the High Court to re examine and reappreciate the evidence on record
On reappraisal it disbelieved the oral evidence
We do not find any error in such reappraisal
It is then sought to be contended that Gulzar Singh had other business and it im plies that he is not in exclusive possession of the demised premises
We find no force in the contention
It may be that Gulzar Singh had other business but that does not lead to the conclusion that Gulzar singh is not in exclusive posses sion of the demised premises as tenant or that he sublet the premises to Avtar Singh
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed but in the circum stances without costs
TNA Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act 1908 confined succession to property to descendants in the male line of Scheduled Tribes covered by the Act
The petitioners who were the ladies belonging to the Ho  and Oraon  Tribes of the Chhota Nagpur area contended that the provisions of Sections 7  8 of the Act were dis criminatory against women and therefore ultra vires the equality clause in the Constitution
The Court at an earlier stage while hearing one of the writ petitions gave time to the respondent State of Bihar to consider the feasibility of carrying out an amendment in the offending sections so as to clearly provide that succes sion was not confined in the male line
In pursuance there of a Committee was set up by the State which came to the conclusion that a custom prevailed among the Scheduled Tribes that a female heir be excluded from succession and that if there was any change and the property be allowed to go into the hands of female heirs there would be agitation and unrest
Adjourning the hearing of the petitions this Court HELD Scheduled Tribe people are as much citizens as others and they are entitled to the benefit of guarantees of the Constitution
It may be that the law can provide reasonable regulation in the matter of succession to proper ty with a view to maintaining cohesiveness in regard to Scheduled Tribes and their properties
But exclusion from inheritance would not be appropriate
Since this aspect of the matter was not examined by the State it should re examine the feasibility of permitting inheritance and simul taneously regulating such inheritance for the purpose of ensuring 478 that the property does not go out of the family by way of transfer or otherwise
480 H 481 AB Jitmohan Singh Munda vs Ramratan Singh  Anr  referred to
In the circumstances hearing of the matter be adjourned for three months and the State of Bihar would immediately take into consideration the order and undertake the exercise indicated and report to the Court by way of an affidavit and along with that a copy of the report may be furnished by the Committee to be set up by the State of Bihar
481 B C