Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bal Krishan vs Rajinder Singh on 2 April, 2012
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CR No.1916 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.1916 of 2012 (O & M)
Date of decision:02.04.2012
Bal Krishan .....Petitioner
Versus
Rajinder Singh .....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.S.P.Soi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
****
G.S.Sandhawalia J. (Oral)
CM No.8546-CII of 2012 Application under Section 151 CPC for exemption from filing certified copy of order dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure P7) is allowed in view of the averments made in the application which are duly supported by an affidavit.
CM No.8547-CII of 2012 Application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record judgment of this Court dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure P-7) is allowed in view of the averments made in the application which are duly supported by an affidavit.
Annexure P7 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CR No.1916 of 2012
1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.03.2012 whereby the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh issued notice in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 29.02.2012 dismissing his application for being impleaded as necessary party in the execution proceedings. CR No.1916 of 2012 2
2. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that once notice was issued in the main appeal, stay should have been granted in eviction from the premises in question since warrant of possession has been issued on 29.02.2012.
3. A brief resume of the facts is necessary for proper adjudication of the issue in question. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the wife of the petitioner regarding premises of house No.3188/1, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh on the ground that he was a specified landlord having retired as Addl. Administrative Officer, Public Relations Department, Haryana on 30.04.2008. The petition was allowed on 01.04.2011 (Annexure P3) and the tenant, Smt.Vandana, wife of Bal Krishan was ordered to be evicted in a summary manner from the premises in question and was given 3 months time from the date of passing of the order to hand- over the vacant possession. The said order was challenged before this Court in CR No.3884 of 2011 and a submission was made that the tenant was not the wife but the husband was the actual tenant and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and this plea was rejected by this Court on 14.10.2011 and the relevant portion of the order reads as under:
"From the aforesaid averments, it is clearly established that respondent-landlord has specifically averred that the petitioner is a tenant in the demised premises whereas the petitioner in her application for grant of leave to defend, though, denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and has further denied payment of rent by her but has admitted that her husband is the actual tenant and she is living with him. Thus, it may be noticed that in the application for ejectment the respondent-landlord has specifically averred that petitioner is a tenant in the demised CR No.1916 of 2012 3 premises whereas petitioner has denied her relationship of landlord and tenant and has taken a stand that her husband is the actual tenant. However, from the averments made in the application it is clearly made out that she had admitted herself as a tenant. Thus, it does not lie in her mouth to say that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and, thus, she ought to have been granted leave to defend the ejectment application. Not only this along with her application for leave to defend she has not placed on record any document in support of her stand taken in the said application.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the contention of the petitioner that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, is without any merit and is hereby rejected.
No other point was raised No merit. Dismissed."
4. Thereafter, the landlord-respondent filed an execution application before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and in the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed an application for being impleaded as a necessary party. The Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.)/Rent Controller, Chandigarh dismissed the application on 29.02.2012 and issued fresh warrant of possession for 11.04.2012 and also allowed the application of the landlord for directions to break-open the lock and granted permission to the bailiff and ordered that vacant possession be delivered to the decree holder. Against the said order, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh who admitted the appeal and issued notice for 11.04.2012 but did not grant any stay. Accordingly, aggrieved against the non-grant of stay, the present revision petition has been filed for grant of stay failing which the execution proceedings would be completed and the appeal would be rendered infructuous.
CR No.1916 of 2012 4
5. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner-tenant regarding the appeal being rendered infructuous, to some extent, carries some weight. But the factual matrix has to be seen in the present case and it is not that in every appeal, interim order is to be granted and the bona fides of the parties and a prima facie case has to be taken into consideration. The petition under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was filed on 08.04.2009 and ejectment order was passed on 01.04.2011. During the pendency of the proceedings under Section 13-A, no effort was made by the present petitioner to be impleaded as a party to show that he was the tenant and his wife was not a tenant. The stand taken by the wife has already been disbelieved, not only by the Rent Controller but by this Court also and it has been recorded above that there was landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent and the wife of the petitioner. The order dated 14.10.2011 has become final and has not been challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. By filing of the impleadment application, the husband has only made an attempt to further delay the eviction which is evident in pursuance of the ejectment order and is apparently a mala fide proceeding as there is no prima facie case made out and neither the balance of convenience lies in favour of the present petitioner which may warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 2011 (8) SCC 161 has held the following in para no. 223:-
"223. The other aspect which has been dealt with in great details is to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by the litigants. While adjudicating, the courts CR No.1916 of 2012 5 must keep the following principles in view.
1. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the court to neutralize any unjust enrichment and undeserved gain made by any party by invoking the jurisdiction of the court.
2. When a party applies and gets a stay or injunction from the court, it is always at the risk and responsibility of the party applying. An order of stay cannot be presumed to the conferment of additional right upon the litigating party.
3. Unscrupulous litigants be prevented from taking undue advantage by invoking jurisdiction of the court.
4. A person is wrongful possession should not only be removed from that place as early as possible but be compelled to pay for wrongful use of that premises fine, penalty and costs. Any leniency would seriously affect the credibility of the judicial system.
5. No litigant can derive benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a court of law.
6. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs.
7. Litigation should not be permitted to turn into a fruitful industry so that the unscrupulous litigants are encouraged to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
8.The institution of litigation cannot be permitted to CR No.1916 of 2012 6 confer any advantage on a party by delayed action of courts."
6. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed, as being a mala fide attempt to delay the fruits of litigation to the landlord.
02.04.2012 (G.S.Sandhawalia) sailesh JUDGE