Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs Mulkh Raj on 10 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103916
2023:PHHC:103916
CR No.3313 of 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.3313 of 2022
Pronounced on : 10.08.2023
Sukhdev Singh
.....Petitioner
Versus
Mulkh Raj
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Sahil Khunger, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate
for the respondent.
*****
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, assails the order dated 04.08.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by
the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, vide which the objections filed by the
petitioner were dismissed and warrants of possession were issued in favour of the
respondent-decree Holder.
2. The respondent-decree Holder filed a petition under Section 13 of the
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short "the Rent Act") seeking
eviction of the petitioner-judgment debtor from a shop situated in Bazar No.5,
Ferozepur Cantt. (hereinafter referred to as the shop in dispute). The shop in
dispute was originally owned by one Bimla Rani and was subsequently purchased
by the respondent-decree Holder along with one Kamal Kumar vide registered sale
deed dated 13.07.2009. The petitioner-judgment debtor was a tenant in the shop in
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 11-08-2023 09:55:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103916
2023:PHHC:103916
CR No.3313 of 2022 2
dispute at that time. Kamal Kumar later withdrew from the ownership of the shop
in dispute leaving behind the respondent-decree holder as its sole owner. Eviction
was sought on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent, personal necessity
and the shop in dispute being unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
3. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on the grounds of
personal necessity and the shop in dispute being unsafe and unfit for human
habitation. In appeal, the Appellate Authority held that the landlord and tenant
relationship had not been proved and under the circumstances, the landlord could
file a civil suit and not an eviction petition under the Rent Act. The eviction
petition was, therefore, dismissed.
4. The matter came to this Court and vide judgment dated 03.12.2021
passed in CR No.825 of 2021 titled as Mulkh Raj Vs. Sukhdev Singh, this Court
reversed the findings of the Appellate Court and upheld the findings of the Rent
Controller. The matter reached the Hon'ble Apex Court on a Special Leave
Petition (Annexure R-1) having been filed by the present petitioner-judgment
debtor. The same was, however, withdrawn unconditionally on 05.05.2022
(Annexure R-2). In the meantime, an execution petition came to be filed in which
an objection petition was filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor (Annexure P-2)
raising an objection that during the pendency of the rent petition, the Cantonment
Board Ferozepur had filed a Civil Suit for declaration against Bimla Rani, Mulkh
Raj and others to the effect that the sale deed dated 13.07.2009 executed by Bimla
Rani in favour of Mulkh Raj and Kamal Kumar was illegal, null and void. This
suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2021 passed by the Court
of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ferozepur but the said fact was not disclosed to
the High Court in the previous revision petition leading to the passing of the
judgment dated 03.12.2021 vide which the High Court restored the decision of the
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 11-08-2023 09:55:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103916
2023:PHHC:103916
CR No.3313 of 2022 3
Rent Controller. This objection petition came to be dismissed by way of the
impugned order dated 04.08.2022 leading to the filing of the present revision
petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision of the
Executing Court, whereby objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed is not
sustainable. Learned counsel submitted that once the respondent-decree Holder
was not the owner of the shop in dispute, the eviction proceedings instituted by
him would not be maintainable.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-decree Holder
submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Reference was made to
the provisions of the Rent Act and it was submitted that it is not essential that a
landlord should necessarily be the owner of the property from which he seeks
eviction. It was submitted that the petitioner-judgment debtor concealed vital facts
from this Court at the time of preliminary hearing and obtained a stay order
despite the fact that the Special leave petition preferred by petitioner-judgment
debtor against the decision dated 03.12.2021 of this Court in CR No.825 of 2021
had been withdrawn unconditionally by the petitioner-judgment-debtor. Learned
counsel submitted that this ground of ownership had been raised before the
Hon'ble Apex Court also but subsequently the Special Leave Petition was
withdrawn and, therefore, under the circumstances, the petitioner-judgment debtor
cannot be permitted to raise this argument again. In support of his contentions,
learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in K.D.Dewan Vs. Harbhajan S. Parhar, (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases
119, S. Bhaskaran Vs. Sebastian (dead) by Legal representatives, (2019) 9
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 11-08-2023 09:55:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103916
2023:PHHC:103916
CR No.3313 of 2022 4
Supreme Court Cases 161, Bismillah Be (dead) by Legal Representatives Vs.
Majeed Shah, (2017) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274 and Apollo Zipper India
Limited Vs. W. Newman and Company Limited, (2018) 6 Supreme Court cases,
744, Ashok Kumar Vs. Piara Singh, 2018 SCC Online P&H 733 and of this High
Court in Bharat Bhushan Vs. Kuldeep Kaur (deceased) through her LRs and
others, 2022 (1) RCR (Rent) 242 and Satnam Singh Vs. Babu Singh and others
2018(1) RCR (Rent) 635.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed
by learned counsel for the parties. The facts are not in dispute. The eviction
petition filed by the respondent-decree holder was initially allowed by the Rent
Controller vide judgment dated 27.04.2018. In appeal, vide judgment dated
25.02.2021, the decision of the Rent Controller was reversed and the eviction
petition was dismissed. In revision, this Court, vide judgment dated 03.12.2021,
passed in CR No.825 of 2021 reversed the decision of the First Appellate Court
and restored the decision of the Rent Controller vide which eviction of the
petitioner-judgment debtor had been ordered. The petitioner-judgment debtor then
filed a Special Leave petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The same is on
record as Annexure R-1 which was subsequently filed by the respondent-decree
Holder and was not disclosed or placed on record by the petitioner-judgment
debtor. The fact regarding the judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division),
Ferozepur on 14.10.2021 in Civil Suit No.407 of 2017 vide which the sale deed
executed by Bimla Devi in favour of the respondent-decree Holder, Mulkh Raj and
Kamal Kumar, was set aside was also referred to in the Special Leave Petition and
a question of law in this regard was also framed. The questions of law framed for
the consideration of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition were as
under:-
4 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 11-08-2023 09:55:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103916
2023:PHHC:103916
CR No.3313 of 2022 5
"2. QUESTION OF LAW:-
The following questions of law arise for consideration by this
Hon'ble Court:
I. Whether as per facts and circumstances of the case, the
principle of natural justice does not apply in the present
case of the petitioner and the case should not be remand
back for proper adjudication by considering the
judgment dated 14.10.2021 passed by the Ld. Civil
Judge (Jr. Div) Firozepur in CS No.407 of 2017?
II. Whether the evidence showing the petitioner in
possession of the suit property has been ignored by the
courts below? Even, the respondent is neither the owner
of the shop nor the landlord of the property.
III. Whether the courts below were justified in allowing he
revision without considering the judgment dated
14.10.2021 and evidence on record?
IV. Whether the judgments and decree passed by the courts
below are vitiated and perverse?"
9. Ground No.1 in the Special Leave Petition was as under:-
"5. GROUNDS:
The Special Leave to Appeal is sought for on the following amongst
other grounds:-
I. Because the impugned judgment passed by the Hon'ble
High Court is unsustainable particularly when the
respondent did not produce any document in respect of
proving the relationship between petitioner and
respondent while the petitioner is in possession as per
the documentary evidence and caused serious
miscarriage of the justice to the petitioner. Even, the
respondent is neither the owner of the shop nor the
landlord of the property as per the judgment passed by
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 11-08-2023 09:55:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103916
2023:PHHC:103916
CR No.3313 of 2022 6
the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Firozepur on 14.10.2021 in
CS No.407 of 2017. The Hon'ble High Court was not
justified in allowing he revision filed by he respondent."
10. The Special Leave Petition was withdrawn on 05.05.2022 and the
following order was passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 6825 of
2022:-
"Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to
withdraw the special leave petition unconditionally.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
Pending application stands disposed of."
11. This fact regarding the Special Leave Petition having been filed
before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same having been withdrawn after
addressing arguments and further about the issue of ownership of the shop in
dispute having been raised in the said Special Leave Petition was neither disclosed
before the Executing Court nor before this Court in the present revision petition.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor in the present
case at the time of issuance of notice of motion was duly recorded by the Co-
ordinate Bench. The order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in
the present case reads as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner-Sukhdev Singh was inducted as tenant by Bimla Rani and
later she had sold the property to Mulkh Raj and Kamal Kumar
through sale deed bearing Wasika No.2145 dated 13.07.2009 and on
the strength of the same, they sought ejectment of the petitioner.
Learned counsel submits that the eviction petition was
accepted by Rent Controller vide decision dated 27.04.2018, however,
the same was reversed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103916
2023:PHHC:103916
dated 25.02.2021. But in the revision filed by the landlord, the order
passed by Rent Controller was restored vide order dated 03.12.2021.
Learned counsel submits that before passing of the order by
this Court, the landlord had lost the title of the subject property as in
a suit filed by Cantonment Board, Ferozepur, the sale deed dated
13.07.2009 in favour of the decree holder was set aside. He submits
that without appreciating the background, much less the loss of right
on the part of the decree holder, the Executing Court has dismissed
the objections raised by the petitioner-judgment debtor.
Notice of motion for 01.12.2022.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner will not be dispossessed from
the premises in dispute."
12. Even in the present revision petition, there is no reference of the
Special Leave Petition having been filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is,
therefore, clear that the petitioner-judgment debtor has concealed this very
important fact from this Court and initially succeeded in getting an interim order.
It is settled law that litigants who, with an intent to deceive and mislead the Court,
initiate proceedings without full disclosure of facts and come to the Court with
unclean hands, are not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor are they
entitled to any relief. In the case of S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs Vs.
Jagannath (dead) by LRs, 1994 AIR (SC) 853, the Hon'ble Apex court held that a
person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court and
can be thrown out summarily at any stage of the litigation. It was held that if a
litigant withholds some vital document in order to gain advantage on the other
side, he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as also on the opposite
party. In the case of Kishore Samrite Vs. State of UP and others, 2013 (2) SCC
398, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down as under while dealing with such
litigants:-
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103916
2023:PHHC:103916
"(i) Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who,
with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings
without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with 'unclean
hands'. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be
heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief.
(ii) The people, who approach the Court for relief on an ex parte
statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state
the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has
broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in
favour of such a litigant.
(iii) The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an
absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.
(iv) Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those
involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and
misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings.
Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have over-shadowed
the old ethos of litigative values for small gains.
(v) A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who
touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled
to any relief, interim or final.
(vi) The Court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order
to prevent abuse of the process the court, it would be justified even in
insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the
Court would be duty bound to impose heavy costs.
(vii) Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must examine
the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest
involved. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted
by unscrupulous litigants.
(vii) The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain
strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of court and
ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted "visa".
Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed
grievances and the Court should endure to take cases where the
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103916
2023:PHHC:103916
justice of the lis well-justifies it. 2010(2) SCC 114: 2011(5) RCR
(Civil) 386 : 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 842 : 2010(1) Recent Apex
Judgment 372, relied."
13. Taking into consideration the settled law, as referred to above and the
fact that the petitioner-judgment debtor concealed these vital facts from this Court,
this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner-judgment debtor would be
disentitled to any relief. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to go into the merits
of the case.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not find
any merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
On account of the petitioner having approached this Court with unclean hands and
on account of his having suppressed vital facts from this Court, exemplary costs of
`1,00,000/- are imposed upon the petitioner which shall be deposited by the
petitioner in the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four
weeks from today. In case the costs are not deposited, the Member
Secretary/Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee will take up the
matter with the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur for recovery of the amount of
costs as arrears of land revenue and after recovery of the same, a compliance
report shall be submitted to this Court.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
Pronounced on 10.08.2023 JUDGE
Rekha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No.
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103916
9 of 9
