Smt. Narinder Kaur vs Smt. Tejinder Kaur & Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 168 Del

ORDER

Vikramjit Sen,J.

1. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is not expected to exercise jurisdiction for substituting its own apprectiation of the case with that of the Courts below.This expecially so where,as in the present case, there is concurrent finding of fact and law of the Courts bbelow.Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to disclose any reason for me to exercise this superintending jurisdiction, as neither of the Courts below had acted beyond their authrity or had discharged their functions in a manner whcih was legally iproper.This would have been sufficient reason for me to dismiss the petition. The facts of the case are so singualr that they have incensed judicial conscience as they disclose how a party can abuse the judicial prcess and thereby cause a miscariage of jsutice.

2. The first legal action taken was the filing of a petition for evicition under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent, Control Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by Smt. Tejinder Kaur against Shri Surinder Singh Bajaj.This proved unsuccessful.This was followed by a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.After the tenant Shri Surinder Singh Bajaj was purportedly anbd allegedly served, Shri O.P. Bajaj, an Advocate appeareed on his behalf and presenteda faciel and impotent defense.The Rent ControlTribunalhas understandably viewed this legal effort on behal fo tenant as a "dummy written statement,offered a friendly contest and suffered an eviction order."

3. The tenant was evicted from the premises on 15.1.1990 when he was proceeded ex parte, convenicently, after the filing of the sterile defense.On 19.1.1990 he filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 and Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being put back in the demised premises. The Courts below were satisfied that the tenant signature on the A.D. pertaining to the Notice of Demand and the A.D. pertaining to the eviction petition,as well as on the vakalatnama of Shri O.P. Bajab wree all forged.In my view it is essential for an Advocate to conduct such eqnury as he may consider necessary in order to ascertain whether the person signing a vakalatnama in his favor is actually the peson whi he represents himself to be.In the prsent who he reprsents himself to be.Inthe prsent case, as an Officer of the Court, Shri O.P. Bajaj, Advocate, was duty bound to ensure that the person who engaged him was not masquerading as the tenant. I shall say no more on his conduct.

4. The application of the tenant under Order IX Rule 13 and Secion 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed by the additional Rent Controller on 6.7.1994.In the intervening three and a half years, however, the landlady had taken steps to ensure that this order would remain abortive and ineffectual.This was achieved by her firstly mentioning that an Agreement to Sell the suit property had been entered into between her and Shri Harmonhinder Singh.Thereafter it appears that she entered into a transaction purporting to be a sale a sale of the property with the Petitioner before me i.e. Smt. Narinder Kaur.The Court below have disabelievd the genuineness of the transaction of sale keeping all these facts in persepctive. I am in total agreement with their findings. The case put forward before me is that conseqeutn upon the sale of the property, no doubt by a registere Sale Deed, the Petitioner (who is stated to be the new owner but who may well be a proxy of Smt. Tejinder Kaur, the original landlady)had carried out widespread concstruction on the demised premises. It is argued that equities are in her favor, but I think otherwise.She was legally bound to make requisite enquries as to the legitimacy of the sale.

5. On the strength of the decisions rendered in Mahesh Chand v. v.Swaran Kaur etc., 1974 Rajdhani Law Reporter 26, Sikandar Lal v.Dr. Anand Mohan Bhutani, 1975 Rent Ceontrol Journal 462 and Amar Kaur v. Umrao Singh, 1971 Rent Control journal 923, Mr. Ansari, learned counsel appearing on hbehalf of Petitioner, contends that instead of restituting the property to the tenant, the proper relief would be to grant him compensation instead. None of these cases have facts smilar to those before me. Im my view where there has been a palpable abuse of judicial process thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice of the most startling nature, adequate recompense should be made. The trauma and suffering of a tenant who finds himself on the road due to theillegal machinations of the landlord cannot and must not be overlooked.It would give a fillip to the perpetration of frauds and illegalities similar to the one effected in this case.

6. In these circumstances I see no reason to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.The petition is dismissed.However, in addition to the costs of Rs.5000/- imposed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, which has not deterred the Petitioner in any manner infiling this frivolous petition, the petition is dismissed with further costs of Rs.10,000/-. The Petitioner will deposit with the Registtrar of this Court these costs of Rs.10,000/- within fifteen days, by Demand Draft payable to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund (Gujarat Earthquake), for onward transmission by the Registrar.