The Supreme Court’s vacation bench comprising justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Ashok Bhushan on Thursday (19 May) heard a matter pertaining to the Rent Act and found to their dismay, that the appellant’s counsel in the case was citing an authority which goes against him.

The suit in the case was filed in 1979, and pertained to a house situated at village Sachan, Taluka Vadra, District Bharuch, Gujarat.

While the suit seeking the eviction of the tenant, and recovery of rent is still pending in the trial court at Bharuch, the dispute regarding whether the matter ought to be heard under the Civil Procedure Code or the Rent Act, has travelled up to the Supreme Court.

In 2005, the Gujarat high court had held that the Rent Act was applicable to the suit, and therefore, the trial court should be asked to transfer the suit to the Rent Court or continue the suit after amendments, under the Rent Act.

Since the high court verdict was in favour of the defendant-tenant, the original plaintiff-landlord appealed against it in the Supreme Court.

During the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court since 2005, both the original plaintiff (landlord) and the defendant (tenant) died, and their descendants were substituted in the case.

On Thursday, when the matter came up before the vacation bench of the Supreme Court, the respondents did not appear, despite serving of notice to the relatives of the deceased original defendant.

However, after reading the authority cited by the appellant’s counsel, Justice Sapre said: “You have cited the right authority, which goes against you.

“It seems you wanted to argue on behalf of the respondent, who is not there today.”

The appellants’ counsel disagreed.