JUDGMENT

In appeal by landlord arising out of proceeding for eviction of his tenant (a leading and influential member of the bar) from premises in his personal occupation for use as his residence-cum-office, the landlord on 20-5-1983 sought second adjournment of hearing of appeal on the ground of indisposition of his senior counsel from outstation. The Addl. Dist. Judge refused the Prayer but granted three days time for making alternative arrangement and directed that appeal be posted for hearing of further arguments on 23-5-1983. He further directed that in the event of failure to urge arguments on 23-5-1983, `the judgment will be pronounced. Even so, the appellant again sought an adjournment on the ground that he could not secure the services of his senior counsel as he was not able to appear till the month of July, and prayed for some time to engage a senior counsel. The Addl. Dist, Judge refused the adjournment and dismissed the appeal by pronouncing the judgment which he had kept ready for being delivered. The High Court dismissed the landlords writ appeal in liming. On appeal to SC by special leave.

Held, (1) that the appellant had been denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing because he was genuinely handicapped in securing the services of a senior advocate to appear for him in the matter. (Para 10)

(2) that the Addl. Dist. Judge could not have armed himself with a readymade judgment dismissing the appeal when further arguments were yet to be heard. The judgment rendered by the Addl. Dist. Judge was thus vitiated by reason of the failure to grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and by reason of the procedure adopted in connection with the preparation and pronouncement of the judgment. W. P. No. 8933 of 1983, D/- 21-7-1983 (All.), Reversed. (Para 11)

Mr. R. B. Mehrotra, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. K. P. Gupta, Advocate, for Respondents.

* W. P. No. 8933 of 1983, D/- 21-7-1983 (All.),

JUDGMENT

M. P. THAKKAR, J. :— "Justice", we do not tire of saying, must not only be done", but ,must be seen to be done". And yet at times some Courts suffer from temporary amnesia and forget these words of wisdom. In the result, a Court occasionally adopts a procedure which does not meet the high standards set for itself by the judiciary. The present matter falls in that unfortunate category of cases. That is the reason why, though we do not feel very happy in doing so, we have had to grant special leave for disposing of the appeal not on merits, but only for the purpose of setting aside the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Moradabad. To set it aside on the ground that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge at the hearing of the appeal was not just and fair. And in order to consequently remand the matter for hearing the appeal afresh with a view to dispose it of on merits in accordance with law.

2. The order sheet of May 20, 1983 of the record of the appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge shows that the appellant sought adjournment on the ground of indisposition of his senior counsel from Saharanpur with a request that the appeal be adjourned to some date in July. The learned Additional District Judge refused the prayer but granted three days time for making alternative arrangement and directed that the appeal be posted for hearing of further arguments on May 23, 1983. Her further directed that in the event of failure to urge arguments on May 23, 1983, the judgment will be pronounced. Even so, the appellant again sought an adjournment on the ground that he could not secure the services of his seniour counsel from Saharanpur as he was not able to appear till the month of July, and prayed for some time to engage a senior councel from Moradabad. The learned Additional District Judge refused the adjournment on the ground that more than sufficient time bad been granted for additional arguments, rejected the prayer for adjournment, and then added :

"The judgment is ready which is