Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 753 (AP)

V. Anjaneyachari v. Sanka Sridhar

2001-07-20

MOTILAL B.NAIK

body2001
MOTILAL B. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) THIS case sets an example disclosing the maladies surrounding the prolonged litigation in the Courts as a result of sustained efforts by a determined party to forestall the benefit to the other side which is available by process of law. ( 2 ) BEFORE proceeding to examine the issue, few relevant facts are traced which are as under: the petitioner is a tenant against whom rent control proceedings were initiated in r. C. C. NO. 22 of 1985 by the landlord/ respondent seeking to evict the petitioner on three grounds namely (i) default in payment of rents, (ii) committing nuisance; and (iii) sub-letting the premises. The matter was contested before the Rent controller and the Rent Controller by the judgment dated 6-5-1988 ordered eviction of the petitioner herein. ( 3 ) THE tenant as usual carried the matter in appeal before the Principal Senior Civil judge, Tenali in R. C. A. No. 8 of 1988. The appellate Court, on analysis of the evidence, remitted the matter to the Rent Controller by the Judgment dated 23-1-1989 with a direction to the Rent Controller to decide the matter afresh by giving opportunity to both the parties. Thus the matter was sent back to the Rent Controller on 23-1-1989. ( 4 ) THE Rent Controller on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence made available, ordered eviction of the petitioner by the Judgment dated 26-3-1991. As against the order of eviction, the tenant again took the matter before the appellate Court in R. C. A. No. 4 of 1991. He was successful in getting the operation of the decree of the Rent Controller stayed during the pendency of the appeal in r. C. A. NO. 4 of 1991. The appeal could not be disposed of for five years as the tenant failed to co-operate for the disposal of the matter and at last by the order dated 20-2-1996, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal for default. ( 5 ) WHILE so, the tenant filed I. A. No. 329 of 1996 seeking to restore the appeal, which was dismissed for default on 20-2-1996. However as a result of understanding between the parties, a compromise was effected between them and a compromise petition in I. A. No. 1100 of 1996 was also filed agreeing to certain terms and conditions. However as a result of understanding between the parties, a compromise was effected between them and a compromise petition in I. A. No. 1100 of 1996 was also filed agreeing to certain terms and conditions. While recording compromise on 20-9-1996 on the compromise petition in i. A. No. 1100 of 1996, the lower appellate court passed the following order: "both parties present and filed the compromise petition. The terms of the compromise are read over to both the parties in Telugu. Both the parties admitted the terms of the compromise petition. Compromise is recorded. " ( 6 ) AS per the terms of compromise, the tenant was permitted to stay in the premises upto 30th September, 1998 on payment of rent of Rs. 125. 00 p. m. and that on 1st October, 1998, the tenant was required to hand over possession of the premises to the landlord. ( 7 ) SURPRISINGLY, notwithstanding the dispute being settled through a compromise, the tenant issued a notice on 9-1-1998 demanding the landlord to pay rs. 1,00,000/- in two instalments at the rate of Rs. 50,000. 00 in lieu of vacating the premises as if such terms were set out in the compromise petition on which basis compromise was recorded in IA. No. 1100 of 1996. The landlord gave a necessary reply refuting the allegations made in the notice through reply dt. 22-1-1998. ( 8 ) THEREAFTER, the tenant made yet another effort before the lower appellate court by filing a petition in C. F. R. No. 6787 of 1998 seeking to reopen the petition filed in I. A. No. 329 of 1996, which was filed for restoration of the appeal in R. C. A. No. 4 of 1991, which was dismissed for default on 20-2-1996. Considering the submissions, the lower appellate Court rejected the application by order dated 21-8-1998. As usual, the tenant approached this Court in c. R. P. NO. 3847 of 1998 assailing the legality of the order made by the lower appellate court in C. F. R. No. 6787 of 1998 dt. 21-8-1998 and succeeded in obtaining the stay of the operation of the order in r. C. C. NO. 22 of 1985. As usual, the tenant approached this Court in c. R. P. NO. 3847 of 1998 assailing the legality of the order made by the lower appellate court in C. F. R. No. 6787 of 1998 dt. 21-8-1998 and succeeded in obtaining the stay of the operation of the order in r. C. C. NO. 22 of 1985. Finally, this Court by the order dated 4-12-1998 remitted the matter to the lower appellate Court to dispose of the petition in C. F. R. No. 6787 of 1998 on merits, while permitting the parties to adduce necessary evidence on the claim of the tenant that fraud has been played on him at the time of recording the compromise. Thus, the matter was again sent to the lower appellate Court. As a result of this order, the tenant continued in possession, though as per the compromise he should have handed over the vacant possession on 1-10-1998. ( 9 ) ON remand from this Court, on behalf of the tenant two witnesses were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked and on behalf of the landlord three witnesses were examined and Ex. B-1, was marked. ( 10 ) THE lower appellate Court on a consideration of the material available before it, dismissed the petition in C. F. R. No. 6787 of 1998 which was renumbered as i. A. No. 104 of 1999, by the order dated 22-9-2000 holding that the allegation of fraud made by the tenant is without any basis and no worthy evidence is placed before the Court for substantiating the said allegation. ( 11 ) AS against the order dated 22-9-2000 in I. A. NO. 104 of 1999 (C. F. R. No. 6787 of 1998) the tenant again knocked at the doors of this Court, filing the present C. R. P. No. 4392 of 2000 and succeeded in obtaining stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the eviction order passed by the rent Controller in R. C. C. No. 22 of 1985. ( 12 ) SMT. ( 12 ) SMT. Venkateshwari, Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner being aged more than 80 years and an illiterate person was not capable of understanding the contents of the compromise and was under the impression that there was some settlement in terms of money also to be paid by the landlord to the tenant and that pursuant to his desire to get certain amounts as per the compromise, a notice was issued by the tenant on 9-1-1998 requiring the landlord to pay Rs. 1,00,000. 00 in two instalments. Counsel further submits that the landlord has played fraud on the tenant and that though this Court on earlier occasion directed the lower appellate Court to dispose of the matter on merits after recording necessary evidence, the lower appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective and urged interference of this Court in order to do justice to the petitioner who is a person of more than 80 years old. In support of her contentions, she relied on the decisions in farozi Lal Jain v. Man Mal and in Banwari lal v. Smt. Chando Devi and contended that when an element of fraud is involved, necessary enquiry is to be made and therefore pleaded that the matter be remitted to the lower appellate Court for fresh enquiry. ( 13 ) ON the contrary, the learned, Counsel for the respondent Sri V. S. R. Anjaneyulu submitted that the litigation emanated from the year 1985 and even in the year 2001, the landlord is not able to procure the premises in spite a compromise arrived at through i. A. No. 1100 of 1996 and that as per the terms of the compromise, the tenant ought to have vacated the premises on 1st october, 1998 and yet the tenant, succeeded in stalling the proceedings by approaching this Court on two occasions and has been successful in obstructing the landlord from taking delivery of the premises despite adverse findings against the tenant on all counts. Counsel submitted that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are not tenable and if the Courts show leniency in favour of litigants of this nature, it would cause irreparable hardship to the respondent and also encourage the petitioner who has abused the process of the Court. Counsel submitted that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are not tenable and if the Courts show leniency in favour of litigants of this nature, it would cause irreparable hardship to the respondent and also encourage the petitioner who has abused the process of the Court. ( 14 ) IN the light of the submissions, the point for consideration is whether the tenant is justified in protracting the litigation on one pretext or the other. ( 15 ) AT the outset, I must say, the narration of facts leading to filing of this petition amply demonstrate that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. ( 16 ) ON merits of the case, initially rent control proceedings were initiated to evict the petitioner on three grounds namely default in payment of rent, committing nuisance and sub-letting the property. The rent Controller ordered eviction of the petitioner from the premises. When the matter was carried before the appellate court, the appellate Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. In the second round of litigation, the Rent Controller again ordered eviction of the petitioner from the premises. Again the petitioner carried the matter before the appellate court and the appeal was not prosecuted for about 5 years and at last the appellate court dismissed the appeal for default. Later a petition to restore the appeal was filed and while the petition for restoration of the appeal was pending, a compromise petition in I. A. No. 1100 of 1996 was filed, compromise was recorded on 20-9-1996 and in terms of the compromise, the tenant was permitted to stay in the premises upto 30th september, 1998. ( 17 ) BEFORE expiry of the said period, on 8-1-1998 the petitioner issued a notice seeking payment of an amount of Rs. One lakh from the landlord on flimsy grounds. After receipt of reply from the landlord, the petitioner filed a petition in C. F. R. No. 6787 of 1998 seeking to reopen the petition filed in I. A. No. 329 of 1996, which was, however, rejected. One lakh from the landlord on flimsy grounds. After receipt of reply from the landlord, the petitioner filed a petition in C. F. R. No. 6787 of 1998 seeking to reopen the petition filed in I. A. No. 329 of 1996, which was, however, rejected. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court in C. R. P. No. 3847 of 1998 and this Court on appraisal, remitted the matter to the lower appellate Court for fresh consideration while permitting the parties to adduce necessary evidence and the matter was again decided and finally the lower appellate Court dismissed the petition in C. F. R. No. 6787 of 1998 which was renumbered as I. A. No. 104 of 1999 by the order dated 22-9-2000 against which the present C. R. P. arises. ( 18 ) ON a perusal of the order of the court below which is impugned in this crp, it is apparent that the Court has given categorical finding that there is no iota of truth in the allegation of the petitioner- tenant about the fraud played by the landlord. On the contrary, the tenant was permitted to stay in the premises upto 30-9-1998 from 26-9-1996, i. e. , for about two years, on payment of rent at Rs. 125. 00 per month and thereafter, the tenant was required to hand over the vacant possession to the landlord on 1-10-1998. Having regard to the finding of the Courts below, I am convinced that this is not a fit case where interference of this Court is required. I am, however, constrained to record concern of this Court that if a person of this nature is allowed to litigate in these forums, I have no hesitation to say that the Courts would be sending wrong message to the litigant public that if a litigant is capable of manoeuvring things, he could still be successful in forestalling the rightful person from enjoying the fruits of a decree obtained by him from a competent Court. Though the Counsel for the petitioner cited few decisions in aid of her stand that fraud has been played by the landlord and enquiry has to be initiated, I do not think this submission requires any serious consideration. Though the Counsel for the petitioner cited few decisions in aid of her stand that fraud has been played by the landlord and enquiry has to be initiated, I do not think this submission requires any serious consideration. On a perusal of the finding of the Court below as is evident from the impugned order from para 13 onwards the court below has taken pains to discuss the entire issue elaborately and held that there is no truth in the allegations made by the petitioner that the landlord has played fraud on him. In view of the finding of the court below on all aspects, I do not think the petitioner has been able to convince this court for interference under Section 22 of the Rent Control Act. Having regard to my discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, this revision petition is dismissed. ( 19 ) IN normal circumstances, if Courts are satisfied, nominal costs could also be imposed while disposing of a case. But in a case of this nature, when the Court comes to the conclusion that there is an element of abuse of process of law the Courts are entitled to impose exemplary costs on the parties. The narration of the facts leading to filing of this petition would reflect that though the landlord initially filed an eviction petition in the year 1985 and succeeded in obtaining the eviction order as early as on 6-5-1988, but even upto this day, he is not able to get the benefits arising out of the said eviction order passed by the rent Controller. No doubt, the aggrieved parties are entitled to agitate the order of eviction in higher forums also. However, the manner in which the petitioner has succeeded in stalling the entire proceedings for several years an one pretext or the other with determined efforts to frustrate the orders passed by the Rent Controller, would only demonstrate that he is bent upon to abuse the judicial process to suit his convenience. On account of the dilatory efforts so made by the petitioner, the litigation has been dragged for more than 15 years. It is in this background, I am of the view, exemplary costs have to be imposed on the petitioner. Having regard to the facts of the case, I quantify the exemplary costs at rs. 15,000/ -. The petitioner shall pay this exemplary costs of Rs. 15,000. It is in this background, I am of the view, exemplary costs have to be imposed on the petitioner. Having regard to the facts of the case, I quantify the exemplary costs at rs. 15,000/ -. The petitioner shall pay this exemplary costs of Rs. 15,000. 00 to the respondent within a period of one month from today.