Back
2014 Supreme(SC) 911
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, Arun Mishra, JJ.
Satendra Singh – Petitioner
Vs.
Vinod Kumar Bhalotia – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (C) No.27519 of 2014
Decided On : 18-12-2014
IMPORTANT POINTS
Supreme Court can take stern action under Article 142 for abuse of process of law.
Fighting a false case on false pleas by suppressing facts thereby lingering litigation for 32 years constitutes abuse of the process of law.
In case of rent agreement only for 11 months tenant becomes trespasser on expiry of the rent period. Notice u/s 106 TP Act is not required.
Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 142 – Petitioner fighting a false legal battle on false pleas – Observations of High Court in impugned judgment – Counsel for petitioner confronted – Praying leave to withdraw petition – Prayer not granted – Directed to file affidavit why petitioner should not be required to pay user charges at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month with effect from 1.7.1982 till date. (Para 5)
(b) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 2(2) – Tenant suppressing fact and knowingly making false statement to delay litigation – Submitting that the building in question was constructed in 1970 – Knowing well that the land was vacant in 1970 and building was constructed in 1978 – Even in rent agreement the building was stated to be constructed in 1978 – Did so to bring the eviction suit within purview of the Act – Contention that eviction suit was not maintainable being hit by the Act – Not bona fide. (Para 8, 9)
(c) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106 – Petitioner contending that notice u/s 106 was invalid – Rent agreement only for 11 months – On expiry petitioner tenant becoming trespasser – Notice u/s 106 not required – Petitioner raising frivolous plea. (Para 10, 11)
(d) Eviction suit – Arrears of rent – Petitioner asserting to have paid arrears of rent vide demand draft of 3000 – Draft issued by a third party, not petitioner – Courts below not accepting petitioner’s plea – Petitioner trying to take advantage of the demand draft issued by a third party. (Para 13)
(e) Administration of Justice – Abuse of process of law – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Tenant petitioner abusing process of law to defeat claim of eviction on expiry of rent agreement – Delaying possession to landlord land lord from July 1982 till date – Petitioner directed to pay user charges at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month, to the respondent-landlord commencing from 1.7.1982 within two months. (Para 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
Eviction suit was filed in 1982.
The petitioner delayed the litigation by fighting a false legal battle on false pleas.
It could be finally adjudicated by the High Court only in 2014.
Against this order the petitioner has filed this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Petitioner tenant is liable to be imposed user charges since 1.7.1982.
Result: Petition dismissed, user charges from 1.7.1982 imposed.
JUDGMENT
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. –
1. The petitioner before this Court, took on rent the shop in question, from the respondent-landlord, in the year 1979. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that after taking the shop on rent, the basic rental was enhanced from time to time. Finally, the rival parties executed an agreement dated 1.8.1981, whereby the shop in question, was rented by the respondent to the petitioner, for the period from August, 1981 to June, 1982. As the petitioner did not vacate the premises on the expiry of the period depicted in the rent agreement dated 1.8.1981, a suit for the eviction of the petitioner was filed by the respondent on 24.11.1982.
2. In order to contest the suit filed by the respondent, the petitioner raised a variety of pleas. First and foremost, it was the assertion of the petitioner, that the suit filed by the respondent-landlord, was unsustainable, on account of the applicability of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as, the 1972 Act). While raising the instant contention, the petitioner adopted the stance that the shop in question had been constructed in 1970.
This position was adopted because the provisions of the 1972 Act are not applicable to building, during a period of ten years, from the date of their completion. The second contention of the petitioner was, that the eviction suit was not sustainable because the notice issued by the respondent-landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was invalid. The third contention of the petitioner was on the subject of the payment of rent. It was the contention of the petitioner, that the entire rent was paid to the respondent-landlord, through a demand draft. It was submitted, that the aforesaid demand draft of Rs. 3,000/- was shown to have been encashed by the respondent-landlord. It is on the above grounds, that the petitioner had contested the suit filed by the respondent.
3. Despite the fact that the suit was filed as far back on 24.11.1982, the matter has reached this Court for hearing only on 27.10. 2014. By now, 32 years have passed, since the filing of the suit. The petitioner has been successful in retaining the possession of the suit premises till date. Through the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment and final order dated 20.8.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the High Court), ordering the petitioner to vacate the premises.
4. While perusing the impugned judgment, we were dismayed by the following observations, which were recorded by the High Court, in the impugned order, while dismissing the revision petition, filed by the petitioner:
"While parting with the case, I am constrained to make certain observations. A simple case of arrears of rent and ejectment filed in the year 1982 against the revisionist on the basis of rent agreement executed merely for a period of 11 months has taken more than three decades to complete its journey up to this Court.
It is indeed a very sorry state of affairs. Judiciary is an institution where the people repose faith. It is the justice which this institution dispenses. It is the confidence of people who approach the judiciary that it commands. It is the sanctity which strengthens the justice delivery system but it is very alarming that justice delivery system is weighed down with pending and backlog cases. The major contributing factors inter alia for this were an inadequate number of Judges and infrastructure deficiencies. Nothing short of immediate and emergent measures are required to solve this crisis, otherwise this magnificent edifice of justice will crumble down."
5. During the course of first hearing of this petition on 27.10.2014, we heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We, however, did not find any merit, in the submissions advanced. It was at that junction, that this
