Delhi High Court
Joglinder Singh Dhir vs Chairman, M.T.N.L. And Ors. on 10 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 671, 96 (2002) DLT 461, 2002 (62) DRJ 225
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Rule.
With the consent of the parties, writ
petition is taken up for disposal.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is Mr. Joginder Singh
Dhir and petitioner No. 2 is Mr. Abdul Sattar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Present petition was filed
by the above petitioner seeking direction to the
respondent to withdraw the impugned notice of 19.2.1998
issued in the name of petitioner No. 2. A direction was
further sought to the respondents to withdraw the bills
of telephone connection No. 2254634 issued by the
respondents for the rent for the period after illegal
disconnection.
3. The averment made in the petition was
that petitioner No. 1 is the subscriber to telephone
No. 2254634, installed in his name at E-167, Pandav
Nagar, Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 claimed that he had let
out a portion of the house to petitioner No. 2, who was
residing in the premises since 8.2.1994. The occasion
for the petitioner to move the court was the receipt
of the impugned notice dated 19.2.1998 in the name of
petitioner No. 2, by which he was required to make the
payment of the arrears of a telephone connection
No. 2251405, in the name of one Anant Sharma installed
at premises No. E-92-93, Pandav Nagar, Delhi.
4. On 15.9.1998, notice to show cause was
issued. From the order passed on 15.9.1998, it appears
the submission made by persons was that telephone
No. 2254634, belonged to petitioner No. 1/landlord of
petitioner No. 2 and that the petitioner No. 1 had
nothing to do with the telephone No. 2251405 for the
non-payment of the bills of which disconnection of
telephone No. 2254634 in the name of petitioner No. 1 was
sought to be done. affidavit has been filed.
5. At this stage, it may also be noticed
that the petitioner No. 2 had instituted a civil suit
for mandatory injunction bearing Suit No. 258/98, where
the said suit had been filed by petitioner No. 2, who
averred that he was tenant in premises No. 167, Pandav
Nagar and was using telephone No. 2254634, installed in
the tenanted premises, which was in the name of the
land-lord/petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 also
admitted that he was previously residing in premises
No. E-92-93, Pandav Nagar, Delhi, where he was using
telephone connection No. 2251405 in the name of the
co-tenant Shri Anant Sharma. Petitioner No. 2 claims to
have vacated the premises on 8.2.1994 and further that
there were no outstanding bills for telephone
connection No. 2251405. Rather the case was that the
petitioner No. 2 was not responsible for the payment of
bills of telephone No. 2251405 after vacating the said
premises on 8.2.1994.
6. In nutshell, after perusal of the
petition and the counter affidavit, the position which
emerges is that petitioner no. 2 had used telephone
connection No. 2254634 as a tenant of petitioner No. 1.
Admittedly, he also had used telephone connection
No. 2251405 in the name of Shri Anant Sharma, who was
his previous landlord.
In these circumstances, the submission made
while obtaining the ex parte order on 15.9.1998, on the
premise that petitioner No. 1 had nothing to do with the
telephone connection No. 2251405, appears to have been
misleading. The petitioners in the course of
submissions in these writ proceedings did not clearly
submit or being out that petitioner No. 2 has had the
benefit of use of both the telephones. Impugned notice
issued by respondent No. 1 calling upon the petitioner
No. 2 to make the payment of the telephone No. 2251405
cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The conduct
of the petitioners has been that of misleading and of
misrepresentation which disentitles them from any
equitable relief in the exercise of writ jurisdiction
by this court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner at
this stage makes a prayer that petitioner No. 2 be
permitted to furnish evidence to the respondents of his
having vacated the premises at E-92-93 under the
landlordship of Mr. Anant Sharma, where he was having
used telephone connection No. 2251405 on 8.2.1994.
Counsel submits that petitioner No. 2 would duly
discharge any outstandings and all the rental as well
as telephone bills up to 8.2.1994 in respect of
telephone connection no. 2251405. In case petitioner
No. 2 so does and also is willing to clear the
outstandings of telephone No. 2254634 from the time he
moved into the premises of petitioner No. 1, he may do
so after satisfying the M.T.N.L. authorities about the
actual date of his occupation. Counsel also makes a
grievance that telephone remained disconnected for same
period. Counsel for the respondent states that the
period during which telephone No. 2254634 remained
disconnected, petitioner will not have to pay any call
charges. Any demand or rebate of rental or otherwise
would be in accordance with the rules. Counsel for the
petitioner states that the petitioner of his own
volition will make a deposit of cost of Rs. 5000/- with
the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
8. Writ petition is dismissed with directions
as given. Petitioners to also pay the costs of
Rs. 5000/- by a Bank draft in favor of Prime Minister's
National Relief Fund by depositing it with the
Registrar of this court within 2 weeks.
