Back
High Court Of Delhi
C.B.AGGARWAL - Appellant
Versus
P.KRISHNA KAPOOR - Respondent
Suit 767 of 1983
Decided On : 11/28/1994
tort - Malicious prosecution — damages for — suit by tenant against landlord for malicious prosecution under Rent Control Act — eviction proceedings carried out under bonafide and reasonable belief — no allegation or proof of proceedings having been initiated for collateral purpose — tenant not entitled to damages.
Malicious prosecution — damages for — considerations for awarding damages — discussed. PIt can safely be concluded that civil actions which are normally covered under abuse of process are relating to attachment or property, damage of a person, malicious bankruptcy, winding up, proceedings and such other processes of the Courts which are abused by a party. Only those cases can be considered by the courts which satisfy the following ingredients:-
1. The proceedings must have been instituted or continued by the defendant;
2. He must have acted without reasonable and probable cause;
3. He must have acted maliciously;
4. The proceedings must have been unsuccessful- that is to say, must have terminated in favor of the plaintiff now suing;
5. The legal process was not only without foundation but is used for an improper and collateral purpose. Such orders were not used for a purpose, for which the court intended to pass the order or the order passed by a court in a case has been used with ulterior motives to cause damage to the reputation, person or property of the affected party.
The probable cause is not the same thing as sufficient cause and has to be judged from the standard of reasonable and ordinary prudent men. The plaintiff is obliged to give positive evidence of not only the lack of proper probable and reasonable cause but also as to the requirements of other conditions, before any relief is granted to him against the defendant.
( 1 ) THE present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. l,10,000. 00 with costs and future interest. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the Principal of Government Senior School, and, at the time of institution of the suit, was working in Government Co-educational Senior Secondary School, Issapur, Delhi. The plaintiff, along with one Ishwar Dass Mahajan, had taken on rent the premises bearing No. F-122, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs. 350. 00 exclusive of electric and water chargers vide lease deed dated 27th May, 1964 from the defendant. The lease deed dated 27th May, 1964 provided the terms and conditions which were to govern the relationship of the landlord and the tenant. Clause (f) of the lease deed reads as under :-
"not to use the said premises or any part thereof for any purpose other than for residence or for school but in case of opening any school, not to take any third person or other person (s) as partner (s) and not to introduce them in the said premises without the prior consent of the lessor. "the case of the defendant is that the premises were rented out for a composite purpose of residence-cum-commercial. The defendant served a notice dated 8th April 1969 upon the plaintiff and Shri Ishwar Dass Mahajan to which they had sent reply dated 23rd April 1969. Shri Ishwar Dass Mahajan had written to the landlord that he had ceased to occupy the premises with effect from 20th February 1969, and, consequently, the plaintiff had become sole tenant of the premises under the defendant. Notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff replied the notice issued by the defendant satisfactorily and staling that the defendant in this suit had no cause of action to take legal proceedings, the defendant instituted a petition on 17th March 1970 under Sections 14 (1) (e), 14 (1) (b), 14 (1) (c), 14 (1) (j), 14 (1) (d), 14 (1) (h) and 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as. the act ). The case of the defendant is that institution of this petition was with ulterior motive and was without sufficient grounds. The defendant knew and was aware of the existence of the lease deed dt. 27th May 1964 and that the premises had been let out for a composite purpose. It was contended that, as such the petition under Sections 14 (1) (e), 14 (1) (b), 14 (1) (c), 14 (1) (j), 14 (1) (d), 14 (1) (h) and 14 (1) (a) of Act was not maintainable. This petition was dragged out by the defendant for a considerable period with collateral purpose of harassing the plaintiff till it was finally dismissed on 23rd April 1974. The appeal preferred by the defendant against the said order of dismissal on 16th July 1974 was also dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal on 7th January 1978.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the grounds made out by the defendant in the petition were not available to the defendant under law and were totally based upon concocted facts which never existed. The plaintiff has stated in detail in the plaint as to how the grounds were not available to the defendant herein for instituting a petition under Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The plaintiff further states that the defendant filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act on 10th December 1975. This petition and even the previous petition were the product of her nefarious and evil designs to harass the plaintiff into a time-consuming and money-consuming litigations. The plaintiff, as a result of this frivolous litigation, had to waste time and money, besides undergoing torture and simultaneously he was losing respect and reputation in the estimation of his friends, colleagues, relations, employers and the various officers of the Directorate of Education because of this litigation. It is stated in the plairit that the defendant had always been motivated to cause 44 obstacles and tremendous difficulties to the plaintiff particularly
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
