Rajni Anand vs The Executive Committee, Delhi ...
1995 Latest Caselaw 219 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. The plaintiff, who is a practicing Advocate of this Court, on 13.9.1994 filed a suit claiming a decree for declaration to the effect that she is entitled to a rightful utilisation of Chamber No. 145, Delhi High Court Building, New Delhi. In addition a decree for injunction is also claimed restraining the Delhi High Court Bar Association or the Members of its Executive Committee from dispossessing her and also restraining the Association from withdrawing the facilities provided to her by the Bar and from cancelling her membership. Further decree for injunction claimed by the plaintiff against the Chairman of the Chamber Allotment Committee is to forebear from allotting Chambers to members of Delhi High Court Bar Association on the basis of the existing rules. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 claiming interim relief. On 14.9.1994 ex parte order of injunction was granted directing that the plaintiff be not ejected or forcibly dispossessed from Chamber No. 145 and her membership be also not cancelled on the ground of her failure to vacate the Chamber.

2. Plaintiff's case is that the Chamber in question was allotted to Mr. Balraj Tirkha, Advocate, who expired on 5.12.1990. Being the only long time junior to late Mr. Trikha, it was plaintiff's noble duty to handle his pending briefs, therefore, she has been operating from the Chamber in question regularly even after the death of Mr. Trikha, to fulfilll this noble job. She had also handled Mr. Trikha's personal cases in Delhi and Mussoorie and had supported the family on humanitarian grounds. Plaintiff states that after the death of Mr. Trikha when a notice was received from the Registry for vacating the chamber, representations were sent by her to the Chief Justice for considering her case for allotment and for amending the Allotment of Lawyers' Chambers Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') since there was no provision in the rules for allotting a Chamber to a junior advocate, more especially a lady lawyer who had taken upon herself the noble job of handling the cases of the deceased lawyer and helping the family. Despite pendency of representations pressure tactics were brought about upon her by the High Court Bar Association compelling her to vacate the premises failing which it was threatened that her membership in the Association was liable to be cancelled and all facilities as a member of the Bar were liable to be withdrawn. The plaintiff has also made grievance with respect to some of the provisions of the Rules and also in the Chamber Allotment Committee making discrimination in her case vis-a-vis to other lady Advocates of the Court, namely, Zubeda Begam and Hima Kohli.

3. Defendants 2 & 3 in their written statement have contested the plaintiff's case by pleading that the Rules for allotment are legal and valid and no amendment therein is possible for which the plaintiff was duly notified when her representations were rejected by the Chief Justice on more than one occasion. It is pleaded that there is absolutely no discrimination against the plaintiff. According to the defendants, she has not yet become entitled to allotment of Chamber, in accordance with Rules. The Chamber in question was allotted to Mr. Trikha, which allotment under the provisions of the Rules stood terminated on the death of Mr. Trikha on 5.12.1990. Widow of Mr. Trikha was informed about the termination of allotment. She was also requested to hand over the vacant possession of Chamber to Junior Engineer, P.W.D. In her reply she requested for being allowed 3-4 months' time to vacate. The plaintiff has no right to hold on to the Chamber in question. She is in unauthorised occupation thereof and is liable to be evicted. Defendants 2 & 3 in their written statement have refuted the plaintiff's allegations that undue favor was shown to Zubeda Begum and Hima Kohli. Both of them, according to the stand taken by defendants 2 & 3, were the joint allottees of Chambers with their Seniors and, thus, there is no question of any discrimination since their cases were dissimilar to that of the plaintiff.

4. Defendant No. 1 has also filed its written statement. It is stated that the Chambers in the High Court Complex are allotted by the Chamber Allotment Committee comprising of three sitting Judges of this Court and two members of the Association. Allotment is made according to rules wherein the priority list is maintained, subject to eligibility of the applicant. Several Advocates, who had applied way back in 1980 after depositing necessary fees, have yet to be allotted Chambers. Plaintiff claims herself to be enrolled only as an Advocate in August 1988 from Maharashtra Bar Council and had become member of defendant No. 1 Association only in June, 1989. She is not entitled to any preferential treatment by superseding the claim of over 1300 members, who had been waiting in que for the last several years. Defendant Association rightly passed a resolution which was communicated to the plaintiff on 7.9.1994 that failure on the part of the members, who are in unauthorised occupation of chambers to vacate the Association will withdraw their facilities and will proceed to cancel their membership.

5. I have heard the plaintiff and the learned Counsel for the defendants at length and gone through the entire record. There is hardly any case what to say any prima facie case in the plaintiff's favor. The plaintiff prima facie has no case to hold on to the premises. The allotment in favor of Mr. Trikha stood terminated on his death on 5.12.1990. She is not covered under any of the provisions of the rules to claim out of turn allotment. Her occupation in the Chambers is without any right, title or interest. The widow of deceased in her letter addressed to the Registrar of this Court stated:

"As you are well aware that I have to look after the clients of my late husband and the Office of Balraj Trikha Law Associates are helping me to achieve this noble objective. The Office of Balraj Trikha Associates is operating from the Chamber No. 145 of Late Balraj Trikha and it is not possible to wind up in a day or two. Therefore, I request you that before you take any action, 1 must be given atleast a period of 3 to 4 months to make alternate arrangements."

6. When neither the widow nor the plaintiff vacated the Chamber, registry wrote a letter to the plaintiff on 24.10.1993 informing that since the allotment of Chamber had already been cancelled, which was in the name of Mr. Trikha, the plaintiff is in unauthorised occupation. She was called upon to vacate the Chamber immediately. The plaintiff did make representations which according to the stand of defendants 2 & 3 in their written statement having no force were rejected. As per the Rules, as they are, there is absolutely no right vested in the plaintiff to hold on to the premises. In the absence of any prima facie there is also no question of continuing with the order of injunction. Balance of convenience also does not lie in continuing with the order of injunction since according to defendant No. 1 the allotment is made on priority basis and there are more than 1300 Advocates waiting in que, who have already made deposits long ago much prior to the plaintiff. The mere fact that the plaintiff is a lady Advocate cannot confer on her a higher right over and above the other colleagues in the bar and, thus, ignore the Rules for allotment of Chambers to lawyers. As a member of the Association the plaintiff is bound by its Bye Laws. So long she is a member, she is also obliged to honour and respect the decision taken by way of Resolution, which admittedly was conveyed to the plaintiff that in case she would not vacate the Chamber, her membership was liable to be terminated and all facilities as a member would be withdrawn.

In these circumstances, the application for interim relief is liable to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed. Interim injunction is vacated.

Needless to add that the observations made above while disposing of the application will not affect the merits of the case.

1A stands disposed of. S. 2044/94

To be listed before D.R. on March 28, 1995 for admission/denial of documents and in Court on April 24, 1995 for framing of issues.