Back
2012 Supreme(All) 1694
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Kabita Mukharjee -Appellant
Versus
Pinky Mookarjee and Others -Respondent
Writ - A No. 26640 of 2010
Decided On : 10-07-2012
B.N. Asthana, B.N. Singh, Raj Kumar, H. K. Asthana, C.S.C., for the respondents.
Fraud vitiates everything, and a party must approach the court with clean hands.
Headnote:
Fraud - Property Dispute - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 16, Section 18 - The court discussed the maintainability of revision under Section 18 of the Act, 1972, the effect of fraud on obtained orders, and the duty of a party to approach the court with clean hands. The court found the petitioner guilty of fraud and misrepresentation, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition with costs.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The petitioner sought release of premises alleging deemed vacancy and the need for personal use. The respondents claimed co-ownership and occupancy, alleging fraud and misrepresentation by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining orders under the Act, 1972. It held that fraud vitiates everything and emphasized the duty of a party to approach the court with clean hands. The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of revision under Section 18 of the Act, 1972, the effect of fraud on obtained orders, and the duty of a party to approach the court with clean hands.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that fraud vitiates everything and held that a person with a case based on falsehood has no right to approach the court. It also highlighted the duty of a party to approach the court with clean hands.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs quantified to Rs. 25,000.
1. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, Advocate, for petitioner; and Sri Raj Kumar, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2.
2. Writ petition is directed against the revisional order dated 23.2.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge, Varanasi, preferred against the Rent Control and Eviction Officer's (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") orders dated 1.10.2004, 13.4.2005 and 30.7.2005. The revisional Court has allowed the revision and setting aside the order dated 30.7.2005, has directed the RCEO to proceed afresh on the mater of release of accommodation to the owner of the premises in question.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner raised two arguments. Firstly that the revision itself was not maintainable and in this regard placed reliance on a Full Bench judgement of this Court in Gopal Dass and another Vs. 1st Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and others 1987 (1) ARC 281.
4. Secondly he submitted that arguments advanced by petitioner have not been considered by Revisional Court and, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. In my view non of the submissions deserve to sustain. However, to elaborate on the above two aspects, it would first be necessary to have certain relevant facts in brief.
6. The case set up by petitioner is that she is co-owner of House No. D 32/45 situated at Mohalla Deonath Pura, Varanasi. Another co-owner of the property in dispute as alleged by petitioner is Smt. Hiranprabha Mukharjee wife of Rai Bahadur Dev Narain Mukharjee, resident of 81, Allenganj, Allahabad. She filed an application for release of premises in question before the District Magistrate under Section 16 (1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") alleging that one Smt. Nirupama Rai Chaudhari, without allotment, got possession of first floor of premises in question in 1978 and proceedings under Section 12/16(1) of Act, 1972 in this regard are pending before Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO"). She got possession of three rooms and a verandah at first floor of the aforesaid house. Smt. Nirupma Rai Chaudhari died in 1992. Her daughter Smt. Manisha Rai Chaudhari was residing with her in-laws. Without permission of landlords, Smt. Manisha Rai Chaudhari gave possession of premises in question to one Nitai Mukharjee on 20.1.1993. Hence there is a deemed vacancy in the premises in question since 20.1.1993. Since the petitioner required property in question for her personal need, the same be released in her favour. This application is dated 28.11.1993 and copy thereof has been filed as Annexure -1 to writ petition. Followings were impleaded as opposite parties in the said application:
@ Hindi @
7. Neither Smt. Manisha Chaudhari against whom the allegations were made nor Sri Nitai Mukharjee to whom it was alleged that possession was given were made party. The application registered as Case No. 15 of 1993 was allowed on 1.10.1994 by RCEO declaring the vacancy observing that he sent notice to Sri Nitai Mukharjee but it could not be served upon him due to non availability at the premises in question and. By order dated 13.4.2005, RCEO released the premises in question in favour of petitioner. It may be worthy to notice at this stage that initially after declaring vacancy on 1.10.1994, the application for release of accommodation in favour of petitioner was dismissed by RCEO by order dated 26.7.1996 whereagainst petitioner filed Rent Revision No. 353 of 1996 which was allowed by the Revisional Court on 20.10.2004 and matter was remanded to RCEO whereafter the order releasing the accommodation in question was passed on 13.4.2005.
8. Against orders of deemed vacancy and release, respondents 1 and 2 filed Revision No. 690 of 2005 alleging that by misleading the Courts below and in a fraudulent manner, release order has been obtained to dispossess the co-owner i.e. Revisionist despite the fact that there was no tenant in the premises in ques
