Girish Chopra vs District Judge Lucknow And Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 2612 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

? AFR
 
Court No. - 14
 
Case :- RENT CONTROL No. - 136 of 2012
 
Petitioner :- Girish Chopra
 
Respondent :- District Judge Lucknow And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Devasheesh Misra,Manish Kumar
 
Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi,J.

By means of this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for writ in the nature of certiorari  quashing order dated 19.12.2012 passed by Learned District Judge, Lucknow in Rent Revision No. 10 of 2012 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. 

Learned counsel for both the parties are present.  Learned counsel for Opposite party No. 3 did not chose to file any counter affidavit.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the records.

A very brief point is involved in this case, but is startling, alarming which has frightened this Court suddenly to awake with a start.

The impugned order has been passed by the learned District Judge, Lucknow, by which he has directed the opposite party No. 3 to continue to occupy the disputed premises, during pendency of the revision subject to condition of payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month as rent.

The building has been released in favour of the petitioner under Section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 07.12.2012.  During the pendency of the revision, the learned District Judge has admitted the revision and passed an interim order of stay which has been challenged before this Court.  The learned District Judge has mentioned that the disputed property consists of nine rooms with other facilities and amenities and that it situates in the heart of the City in front of Novelty Cinema Hall where market rate of rent should not be less than Rs. 15,000/- per month. 

In the next two paras, the Learned District Judge has made the following observations:-

"On the other hand, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he does not dispute this current market rate of rent but it is submitted that the revisionist has been working in some private institution, earning only Rs. 10,000/- per month and, hence, onerous condition should not be imposed to him, while granting stay.  It is also suggested by the tenant-revisionist that he may be allowed to reside in two rooms only and possession of remaining seven rooms may be handed over by him to the Landlord, but it is half-heartedly submission which cannot be accepted at present.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as also the submissions, advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I take the guess work to assess current market rate of rent of the property of which the revisionist is tenant.  On guess work, I found that current market rate of rent of the accommodation should not be less than Rs. 15,000/- per month and if 50% of this amount, i.e. Rs. 75,00/- is deposited by the revisionist, his dispossession may be stayed.  However, in view of constrained condition of the revisionist, the amount of Rs. 7,500/- is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-."

The impugned paras as quoted above did not appear to this Court to be passed by a Judicial Officer, which has been entrusted by this Court to function as District Judge of the capital of the State.  On one hand, he has mentioned the statement at the Bar  and on the other hand, he has mentioned that it is half-hearted submission, which cannot be accepted. When a half hearted submission was made before a Court, how did he dare to form part of his order? It does not lie in the mouth of the Presiding Judge to recklessly dissolve the statement of an Officer of the Court.

Unfortunately, in the next para, the learned District Judge has shamelessly mentioned that he is taking the guess work to assess current market rate and on guess work he has found the current market rate as not less than Rs. 15,000/- per month.  Again, he has committed a folly by deducting it to 50 per cent, which comes to Rs. 7,500/- and in a draconian way he has reduced it to Rs. 5,000/-.  The perversity of the impugned order does not require any arguments nor interpretation, which shows the reckless manner in which the impugned matter has been passed by the learned Presiding Judge, who has forgotten all judicial norms prevalent for centuries together which is the basis of faith in the judicial system and constitutional mechanism of the public, at large.

In Gurdev Kaur & Ors. v. Kaki & Ors. 2006 (4) SBR 371, the Hon'ble Apex Court has started its judgment by following words:-

"Judges must administer law according to the provisions of law. It is the bounden duty of judges to discern legislative intention in the process of adjudication. Justice administered according to individual's whim, desire, inclination and notion of justice would lead to confusion, disorder and chaos."

Perversity has been defined as turning aside from right or truth; obstinately determined when in the wrong; capricious and unreasonable; wrong headed, stubborn; wayward; deliberately wicked; and against the evidence or against the direction on point of law.  The learned District Judge has diverted himself the true object.  In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that during pendency of the petition instituted at the behest of the tenant, the court may permit him to continue in possession  subject to payment of rent at the market rate which should be ascertained. Guess work is unknown to judicial determination excepting the exceptional circumstances where guess work is the only way, as mentioned in Halsbury's law of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12 regarding non-pecuniary loss and compensation compensation relating to mental agony and pain, shortening of expectations of life consequent upon some wrong etc. cannot be proved, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi vs. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd.[AIR 1995 SC 755], in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has relied upon the decision in the case of Ward v. James, 1965 (1) All ER 563, wherein it has been held:-

"Although you cannot give a man so gravely injured much for his 'lost years', you can, however, compensate him for his loss during his shortened span, that is, during his expected 'years of survival'. You can compensate him for his loss of earnings during that time, and for the cost of treatment, nursing and attendance. But how can you compensate him for being rendered a helpless invalid? He may, owing to brain injury, be rendered unconscious for the rest of his days, or, owing to a back injury, be unable to rise from his bed. He has lost everything that makes life worthwhile. Money is no good to him. Yet judges and juries have to do the best they can and give him what they think is fair. No wonder they find it well nigh insoluble. They are being asked to calculate the incalculable. The figure is bound to be for the most part a conventional sum. The judges have worked out a pattern, and they keep it in line with the changes in the value of money."

In R.D. Hattangadi's case (supra), it has further been observed:-

"In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards."

The settled law in India is that what is administered by the Courts is justice, according to law and considerations of fair play.  Considerations of equity cannot prevail and did not permit to pass order contrary to law.  It is true that equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equally, but equity cannot override the settled law.  It is also now settled that wherever there is a conflict between law and equity, the former shall prevail.  The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is binding upon all courts of India as enshrined in Article 142 of the Constitution of India, but the learned District Judge has appeared to have sit in appeal against the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court and has acted upon his own whims and notion of justice.  This is bound to lead  confusion and chaos in the society.  What will happen with the constitutional scheme, when chaos is created in the society by the judicial mechanism, which is bound to keep his fingers tight over the pulse of the society and pass orders, which are of far-reaching effect.  In this era of quick transmission, the Judges have to respond more cautiously.  The learned Senior Advocate Sri J.N. Mathur was feeling shy to criticise the judgment  by the learned District Judge, which cannot be said to be an order passed by the District Judge.

Consequently, the impugned order is quashed.  The petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the learned District Judge, Lucknow to quickly respond to the needs of the justice and decide the rent revision on the date fixed itself and, in case of any exigency, beyond his control on the following day.   If there is a gap between receipt of this order and the date fixed in the revision, the learned District Judge shall immediately pass orders in accordance with law on the basis of the statement at the Bar, and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheshambal v. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and ors. (2010) 3 SCC 470. Another lapse in  the impugned order is that the learned District Judge has not fixed any date for hearing of the revision in the impugned order; if it has been fixed somewhere else, in the order sheet, the learned District Judge shall decide the case and report its compliance within twenty four hours of the passing of the judgment. If the hearing could not be conducted, the learned District Judge shall fix interim monthly rent in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 705 and in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad and Anr. v. Atma Ram Chauhan and Ors. AIR 2011 SC 1940 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines and norms of such types of litigation in para 21 of its judgment, in most judicial and balanced way known to the institution of justice and not in monarchial way, in such a fashion that the message is transmitted to the public at large to the effect that this Court has entrusted the pious institution of District Judge to a person having judicial approach.

The Registry of this Court is directed to place a copy of this order on the personal file of the District Judge concerned and shall also place a copy of this order before Hon'ble the Administrative Judge, Lucknow as and when it is convenient to His Lordship.

Order Date :- 23.5.2013

Nitesh