Furqan Ahmad vs Civil Judge Mohanlalganj (S.D.) ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1452 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 14
 
Case :- RENT CONTROL No. - 138 of 2009
 
Petitioner :- Furqan Ahmad
 
Respondent :- Civil Judge Mohanlalganj (S.D.) Lko.And Ors.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Prashant Singh Gaur
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Z.Jilani
 
Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi,J.

By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner/tenant has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the interlocutory order dated 10.09.2009, passed in P.A. Case No.07 of 2006 by learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, by which the tenant's prayer for cross examining the deposition made by the landlord has been rejected.

Heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the records.

Brief facts of the case are that opposite party nos.2 and 3 moved application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for release of building. The tenant/petitioner filed his written statement and evidence through affidavit was called for by the learned Prescribed Authority. The  landlord filed his affidavit in evidence but the defendant/tenant who is petitioner before this Court did not file affidavit, in evidence, but moved an application to cross-examine the landlord to test the correctness  of the affidavit regarding bona fide need of the landlord which has been rejected by the learned Trial Court by a detailed and well reasoned order.

It is settled law that in case under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 the evidence is to be led through affidavits. In rare cases the learned Prescribed Authority may permit the cross examination only under exceptional circumstances which cannot be disclosed or rebutted through counter affidavit. No such circumstances have been placed by the tenant/petitioner before the learned Prescribed Authority.

A perusal of copy of application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, moved by the landlords depict that they have sought for release of the shop on the ground that applicant no.1 is not settled in any business and he wants to settle his business in the disputed shop who has also moved an application, copy of which is contained as Annexure No.III, for local inspection which has been allowed by the learned Prescribed Authority and the report commissioner has been filed, contained as Annexure No.IV. Thereafter, the petitioner move application for discovery and inspection, copy of which is Annexure No.V, that the landlords are not in the habit of doing any work, as already pleaded in the written statement by the tenants and they have to prove by correct evidence that they are under bona fide need of the shop in question; unbelievable statement has been made in the affidavit that the landlords have a hotel in Massoori and that they have a building at Rana Pratap Marg for which nothing has been said by the landlords; no document has been produced by the landlords regarding publication of newspaper under the name i.e. "Ek Daam"; the applicants are running "Handi Hotel" at Rana Pratap Marg. All these facts can be rebutted and proved by the tenant/petitioner to be untrue for which no cross-examination is required. The applicants have moved application for cross examination, copy of which is contained as Annexure No.VII, in which they have alleged that it is necessary to test the veracity of the affidavit filed by applicant no.1 through cross-examination which has not been disclosed in this application as to why cross-examination is necessary and how the tenant/petitioner cannot prove that the allegation which are made by the landlords are incorrect. Learned Prescribed Authority has rightly rejected the prayer for cross-examination.

Obviously, it is tenant's dirty trick to delay the disposal of the case before the learned Prescribed Authority which deserves to be disposed of within two months, as provided under Rule 15 (3) of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.

In Atmaram Properties v. Federal Motors, reported in 2005 (1) S.C.C. 705, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"The landlord / tenant litigation constitutes a large chunk litigations between in the courts and tribunals. The litigation goes on for unreasonable length of time and the tenants in possession of the premises do not miss any opportunity of filing appeals or revisions so long as they can, thereby, afford to perpetuate the life or litigation and continued in occupation of the premises."

In Gayatri Devi & ors. v. Shashi Pal Singh, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 2070, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"This appeal demonstrates how a determined and dishonest litigant can interminably drag on litigation to frustrate the results of a judicial determination in favour of the other side.......

On 1.11.1987 the appellant committed perhaps the gravest blunder of her life of letting out the suit property to the respondent-tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.1300/-, which subsequently came to be increased to Rs.1500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1990.....

The history of this litigation shows nothing but cussedness and lack of bona fides on the part of the respondent. Apart from his tenacity and determination to prevent the appellants from enjoying the fruits of the decree, there appears to be nothing commendable in the case. Even before us the same arguments of fraud, and that the appellants were not legally owners of the suit property, were pleaded.....

In our view, the conduct of the respondent deserves condemnation which we indicate by imposition of exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- on the respondent."

Later on in Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji v. Mahadev Channabasappa & ors, reported in 2000 SCFBRC 321, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 

"It is distressing to note that many unscrupulous litigants, in order to circumvent orders of the courts adopt dubious ways and take recourse to ingenious methods including filing of fraudulent litigation to defeat the orders of the courts. Such tendency deserves to be taken serious note of and curbed by passing appropriate orders and issuing necessary directions including imposing or exemplary costs."

In Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar & anr., reported in 2003 AIR SCW 7158, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment-debators to deny the decree-holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law's delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system."

In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case has further held as under:

"In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others (2008) 12 SCC 481, the court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others (2009) 3 SCC 141."

This is the experience of this Court that in last 40 years, a new breed of litigants has cropped up. Those, who belong to this breed, do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new generation of litigants, the Courts have, from time to time evolved new rules and, it is now well established that the litigants, who attempt to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, are not entitled to any relief, interim or otherwise. I find force while holding this, by the law laid down in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC, 114 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

On the basis of the discussions made above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 29.4.2013/Ram.