Back
2008 Supreme(All) 978
[2008(4) ADJ 679]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : DILIP GUPTA, J.
JAGDISH SARAN ......Petitioner
Versus
IXth ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MORADABAD AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 17357 of 1993, 5894 of 2003 and 40551 of 1999, decided on 22nd April, 2008)
Headnote:U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Sections 16(1)(b), 18(3) and 20(1)(a)—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 47, Order XXI, Rules 97 and 2, Order II, Rule 2, Order IX, Rules 9, 8—Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 106—Suit—Filing of, for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent—Whether the suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 or Order IX Rule 9, C.P.C.—Respondent 3-tenant resisted dispossession from premises in dispute for a period of more than two years by raising frivolous objections before Executing Court—And he has succeeded in his dubious designs to retain possession of shop for which decree of eviction was passed on 16.5.1969—And even judgment dt. 10.2.1987 by High Court, wherein a clear and specific direction was given to Executing Court to take immediate steps for executing decree and putting landlord in possession of said shop—Therefore, respondent-3-tenant directed to hand over vacant possession of shop to landlord-decree-holder within two weeks—Failing which D.M. directed to ensure decree-holder-landlord was put in possession of shop within next three days—Also, tenant was directed to pay damages @ Rs. 50 p.m. from 16.5.1969 for next five years; thereafter @ 100 p.m. for next five years; thereafter @ Rs. 200 p.m. upto 10.2.1987; from 10.5.1987 for next five years @ Rs. 300 p.m., for next five years @ 600 p.m. for next five years @ 1200 p.m. and thereafter Rs. 1800 p.m. alongwith costs of Rs. 50,000 also to be paid to landlord-petitioner. [Paras 68 to 73]
Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—It was only a fortnight ago when this Court expressed its deep anguish at the conduct of a tenant who had resisted dispossession from the premises under his tenancy for a period of more than two years by raising frivolous objections before the Executing Court despite specific directions of this Court that the tenant must handover peaceful possession of the accommodation to the landlord within three months.
2. The facts of the present petition are far more disturbing and reveal how an unscrupulous tenant in his attempt to cling on to the tenanted premises has been able to resist the decree of eviction passed against him in 1969 and that too when this Court, as far back as on 10th February, 1987, had directed the Executing Court to take immediate steps for executing the decree and get the possession delivered to the decree-holder without any further delay after noticing the ‘fraudulent’ conduct of the judgment-debtors.
3. The Court is reminded of the note of caution sounded by the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar and another, 2003 AIR SCW 7158 :
“Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment-debtors to deny the decree-holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law’s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.”
4. The Court is also reminded of what was observed by the Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another, AIR 1977 SC 2421 :
“The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the Court process and makes decrees with judicial seals brutum fulmen. The long arm of the law must throttle such litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community in the judicature is to survive.”
5. The conduct of such unscrupulous tenants in attempting to circumvent the orders of the Courts by adopting dubious ways has been strongly deprecated by the Supreme Court and this Court time and again and exemplary costs have also been imposed.
6. In Gayatri Devi and others v. Shashi Pal Singh, 2005 AIR SCW 2070 the Supreme Court, in one such case, made the following observations :
“This appeal demonstrates how a determined and dishonest litigant can interminably drag on litigation to frustrate the results of a judicial determination in favour of the other side. .....................
On 1.11.1987 the appellant committed perhaps the gravest blunder of her life of letting out the suit property to the respondent-tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 13,00/-, which subsequently came to be increased to Rs. 1,500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1990.
The history of this litigation shows nothing but cussedness and lack of bona fides on the part of the respondent. Apart from his tenacity and determination to prevent the appellants from enjoying the fruits of the decree, there appears to be nothing commendable in the case. Even before us the same arguments of fraud, and that the appellants were not legally owners of the suit property, were pleaded.
In our view, the conduct of the respondent deserves condemnation which we indicate by imposition of exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000/- on the respondent.” (emphasis supplied)
7. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that Suit No. 241 of 1966 was filed by the petitioner-landlord Jagdish Saran against the tenants Shri Nanhey Mal and Shiv Shanker for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a shop situated in district Moradabad. This Suit was decreed on 16th May, 1969 on the basis of the compromise between the parties for ejectment and for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month from 4.5.1966 to 7.8.1966. A decree for mesne profit was also passed at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month from 4.8.1966 till the date of delivery of possession. The judgment-debtor did not comply with the decree as a r
