LexUDAI CHAND versus SHANKER LAL & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UDAICHAND v. SHANKER LAL & OTHERS February ?, 1978 809 1M. H. BEG, C. J., P. N. BHAGWATI AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] Special leave, revocation of under rule 6 of Order XLVII read with rule 10 of Order XVI '.Jf Supren1e Court Rules 1966~Special [ea1? obtained by 1nis- represe111a1ion of facts should be revoked-Constitution of India Article 136. The respcndents are the legal representatives of one Surajmal, who had pur- chased suit shop by a registered sale deed dated 17-5-1965, from one Bhurdas to whom the petitioner had executed t\VO rent notes, Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 10, ~pecifically mentioning the name of Bhurdas, as the owner of the shop. The petitioner was notified of the said sale deed by a registered letter dated 25-6-1965 which was received by him on 29-6-1965. Surajmal terminated the tenancy of ~ the petitioner by a registered notice in July 1965, coupled with the demand for arrears of rent. Upon the failure to comply with the notice to quit, a suit w<ts filed against the petitioner on 23-11-65. The petitioner contested the suit deny- ing the execution of any rent note in favour of Bhurdas and pleaded having taken the shop from another individual, Mahant Ran1 Ratan Das. In the course of litigation, the petitioner prayed for an issue to be framed on the ques- tion Whether there was legal necessity for the transfer in favour of the plaintiff 'by Bhurdas, which was refused. In revision against the said interlocutory order, the High ·court refused to interfere taking the view that the petitioner was estop- ped from questioning the title of Bhurdas as his landlord by reason of the princi- ,ple laid down in Section 116 of the' Evidence Act. Ultimately, upon the decree of eviction by the trial Court and affitmed by the First Appellate Court, the defendant-petitioner again challenged the view that be was estopped from questioning the title of Bhurdas, by way of second appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal quoting a recital in Exhibit 10 wherein the petitioner has admitted the ownership of the shop by Bhurdas to whom he would pay rent. The petitioner thereafter filed S.Peci~ leave petition and obtained ex-parte ad-interitn stay of eviction by allegmg in Ground No. 7 that the rent note, Exhibit 10, no where stated that Bhurdas was the owner of the shop and, therefore, there was no proper appreciation of the ·said Exhibit. The respondent filed an application for revocation of the special leave peti- :tion. Revoking the special leave. and dismissing it the Court. HELD : In dealing with application for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of facts and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by mak· ing statements, which are untrue and mis-leading. Supreme Court cannot per- mit abuiie of the process of law and of law courts. [812 BC] A B c D E F Hari Narain v. Badri Das, [1964] 2 SCR 203 @ 209 and Rajabhal Abdul Rehman Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, [1964] 3 SCR 481 @ 488 & 493 G followed and reiterated The King v, Williams & Ors. [1914] I K. B. 608, The King v. The General Commissioners for the Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the District of Ken .. sington, [1917] I K. B. 486 and Asiatic Engineering Co. v. Achhru Ram & Ora. AIR 1951 All 746 referred to. Observation : Supreme Court cannot mitigate possible rigours of any law by permitting de- faulting tenants to hold up their evictions indefinitely or for inordinately Ions periods on tjimsy or uqsµstainable $rDPIJds. [813 B-C] H 810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] 2 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Miscellaneous Petition. No. B 8783 of 1977. (Application for additional grounds etc.) In the matter of :- Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2478 of 1977 From the Judgment and Order dated 3-5-1977 of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil 2nd Appeal No. 403 of 1975. Badridas Sharma and S. R. Snivastava for the Petitioner. Dr. L. M. Singhvi, S. M. Jain, Dalveer Bhandari and S. K. Jain for / c D the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, C.J. The plaintiff landlord had purchased a shop by a sale deed dated 17th May, 1965, and then terminated the tenancy of the defendant-petitioner by a registered notice in July, 1965, coupled with a demand for arrears of rent. Upon the failure of defendant to com- ply with the notice to quit a suit was filed aga
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.