HARI NARAIN versus BADRI DAS

Citation: [1964] 2 S.C.R. 203 · Decided: 04-03-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
• 
2 s.c.:R. 
stri>:REM:E COURT REPORTS 
203 
1963 
not otherwise. The rule-making authority pre- . 
sumably 
thought that 
having regard to the StateofUttarPraaah 
status of the gazetted government servants, it would 
Jogend~~ Singh 
be legitimate to give such an opinion to them. 
Therefore, 
we feel no difficulty in accepting the 
Gajendragadkar J, 
view taken by the High Court that rule 4(2) imposes 
an obligation on the Governor to grant a request made 
by the gazetted government servant that his case 
should ho referred to the Tribunal under the Rules. 
Such a request was admittedly made by the respon· 
dent and has not been granted. Therefore, we are 
satisfied that the High Court was right in quashing 
the proceedings proposed to be · taken by the appe· 
Hant against the respondent otherwise than by 
referring his case to the Tribunal under the Rules. 
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed 
with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
HARi NARAIN 
v. 
BADRI DAS 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
and J. C. SHAH JJ.) 
Supreme Oourt Practice-Revocation of Special Leave 
granted earlier by Supreme Oaurt-Effect of inaccurate, untrue 
and misleading statements in petition for Special Leave. 
The respondent filed a suit for the ejectment of the 
appellant. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The . 
respondent filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional 
Sessionsjudge,Jaipur City. The appeal was accepted and 
the claim of respondent for ejectment 
was allowed. The 
appellant filed an appeal in the Rajasthan High Court but 
that was dismissed. The High Court also refused to gr~nt a 
certificate.°~ fitness to ~ppeal to this Court. The appellant 
filed a petitmn for Special Leave to appeal to this Court and 
the same was allowed. 
1963 
March . 
/Y63 
llati }.'1111:j11 
v. 
Bc11'i Da1 
GajendratadMr J. 
-
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l964) VOL. 
The re1pondent filed a petition in 
this C'ourt with a 
prayer that Special Leave granted to the appellant be revoked 
on the 
ground 
that 
the appellant ha·J made inaccurate, 
untrue an<l misleading staten1ents in the petition for Special 
Leave. This Court also fournl that the apeellant had mack 
certain wholly untrue statements in the petition for Special 
Leave. 
lleld, that Special Leave 
granted 
to the appr.llant 
ought to be revoked and the appeal dismissed. It was observed 
that it \Vas of utmost iinportance that 
in making material 
statcn1cnts anrl setting forth grounds in applications ior special 
leave, care must be taken not to m1ke anv staten1ents \\'hich 
are inaccurat(", untrue and 
n1isleading. 
'In dealing 
with 
applications for special leave, this Conrt takes statement. of 
fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face 
value anct it would he unfair to betray the 
confidence of this 
Court hy making staterncnts \vhich arc untrue and misleading. 
Cn·1L 
APPELLAn: 
JumsnICTIO~ : Civil 
Appeal :\o. 14 of 196:1. 
From the judgment and decree dated July 30, 
1962, of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Regular 
S. A. ;'\o. 223 of 1961. 
JI. C. Setalvad, S. 1'. Desrii and Naunit Lal 
for the appellant. 
G. S. Pathak and S. N. 
Andley, for the 
respondent. 
IIJ63. 
March 4. 
The Judgment of the court 
was delivered by 
GA.JF.NDRAGADKAR J.-It is not necessary to 
deal with the merits of the points which the appel-
lant wanted to raise before us in this appeal, because 
we are satisfied that the respondent's prayer that the 
special leave granted to the appellant should be re-
voked, is well-founded. The appellant is a tenant of 
the premises in suit which are owned by the respon-
dent. These premises were let out to the appellant 
• 
2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
205 
by the respondent under a rent-note executed on 
December 8, 1953. 
The appellant was permitted to 
use the said premises for his Oil Mill. 
The terms of 
the lease provided that the appellant was to pay to 
the respondent the agreed rent every month and in 
case of default for three months, the respondent was 
entitled to evict the appf llant before the expiry of 
the stipulated period which was five years, and in 
that case he was entitled also to claim the rent for 
the remaining period. 
On May 2, 1959, the respondent sued the 
appellant for cjectment in the Court of Munsif, East 
Jaipur City. 
He alleged that he had received the 
rent from the appellant up to October 31, 1957 
and that thereafter the appellant had defaulted in the 
payment of rent in spite of repea

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.