Appellate Court cannot reverse an evidentiary finding based on unproven documents produced for the first time in appeal.

The Petitioner, Mumbai Port Trust, initiated eviction and recovery proceedings against Respondent No. 1 (tenant) and Respondent No. 2 (alleged sub-tenant) under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.

The tenancy commenced in 1994, but no formal lease was registered

The Petitioner terminated the tenancy in 2003 due to rent arrears and unauthorized subletting to Respondent No. 2

The Estate Officer passed an ex-parte order on March 28, 2006, for eviction and recovery of compensation, as the Respondents failed to file a written statement despite service

Respondent No. 1 challenged this before the City Civil Court, which allowed the appeal and reversed the eviction/compensation order by relying on a reply letter produced for the first time at the appellate stage, suggesting "implied consent" for subletting

1. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Estate Officer’s order based on a document (the reply letter) produced for the first time in appeal without supporting pleadings or evidence

2. Whether unauthorized subletting and arrears of rent were established to justify eviction under the Public Premises Act

Sections 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act regarding the summary procedure for eviction and recovery of rent

principles of Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, which dictates that the initial onus is on the plaintiff, but shifts to the defendant to prove circumstances disentitling the plaintiff to relief once the initial burden is discharged

Rangammal v. Kuppuswami, establishing that a suit must be tried based on pleadings and that misplacing the burden of proof or deciding cases outside the nucleus of pleadings vitiates the judgment

The High Court found that the Estate Officer correctly relied on the Petitioner’s unrebutted evidence, as the Respondents chose not to participate in the original proceedings

The Appellate Court erred by relying on a reply letter produced by Respondent No. 1 for the first time in appeal. Since there were no pleadings or oral evidence to prove the contents of this letter, it could not form the basis for a reversal

Regarding subletting, the terms of the tenancy required written consent; mere intimation of an intent to sublet does not equate to "implied consent" or "deemed consent"

The court noted that Respondent No. 1 failed to discharge its burden to prove any legal right to induct Respondent No. 2

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the City Civil Court's order dated August 10, 2010, and restoring the Estate Officer’s order dated March 28, 2006. The eviction and the order for payment of compensation were confirmed