Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 210 (PAT)

Manoj Kumar v. Ashok Kumar Sinha

2004-02-20

RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2004
Judgment 1. On the presentation of the present Civil Revision Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate, who has signed the Vakalatnama made a statement that he be permitted to withdraw the Civil Revision. At this, Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, opposite party no. 1, desired to be heard on what the whole issue was about. 2. Manoj Kumar is an Advocate of the High Court. He is the petitioner who has brought this revision. He is defendant no. 1 in Eviction Suit No. 41 of 2001 filed by Ashok Kumar Sinha, the plaintiff. There are other defendants also. Ashok Kumar Sinha is an Advocate of the High Court. He is the landlord plaintiff. He narrated a very sad story. He gave the premises he owns to his colleague advocate at the Bar of the High Court. The colleague who became a tenant is Manoj Kumar, Advocate. He would not pay rent. After agreeing to an agreed rent he took the advocate landlord to Court, the Rent Controller to determine standard rent. The advocate-tenant did not like the rent fixed by the Rent Controller in an action filed by him and filed an appeal before the District Judge to further reduce the standard rent. 3. Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate, holding the brief of the petitioner submits that he is only a friend of the petitioner tenant, otherwise defendant no. 1. But, this friend advocate also resides at the premises in question. So between the tenant-petitioner-advocate and his friend both reside in the same premises of which their colleague advocate is the landlord; the opposite party in this civil revision. It is on this that Shri Ashok Kumar Sinha, opposite party no. 1, landlord, interjected to present the entire scenario. He submitted that if the record of the trial court be seen, the story which is being told to the High Court is incorrect. Opposite party Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha submitted that the petitioner Manoj Kumar is the tenant and is an advocate. He took the premises to do business. He ran a business of courier services and video mixing business also. The other two defendants in the suit, Radha Krishna Sinha and Shekhar Sinha, defendants No. 2 and 3, opposite parties No. 2 and 3 in this revision were brought into the premises as employees. He took the premises to do business. He ran a business of courier services and video mixing business also. The other two defendants in the suit, Radha Krishna Sinha and Shekhar Sinha, defendants No. 2 and 3, opposite parties No. 2 and 3 in this revision were brought into the premises as employees. The oral prayer to withdraw the civil revision would only mean that all this time while the matter lay pending before the High Court, time has been purchased in litigation and if the Court were to grant leave to submit he will submit with more details. 4. This matter was presented on 27 June, 2003. On 2 July, 2003 the learned Judge before whom the matter was in admission recorded "Let defendant no. 1 be ignored for the present. Put up this case for admission on Monday (7.7.03)." Even notice has not been issued on this civil revision. But, today, the main players are before the Court. 5. The story indicated to the Court that the friend of Manoj Kumar who filed the present civil revision desires to withdraw the case is a story which the Court cannot accept after strong opposition on behalf of opposite party no. 1 Shri Ashok Kumar Sinha. After parties have disclosed their identities the scene emerges thus: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate is the plaintiff-opposite party, the landlord. The petitioner Manoj Kumar, an Advocate of the High Court, defendant no. 1 is the tenant. When the prayer to withdraw the revision is being made it leaves the order in Eviction Suit unscathed. Rather than give facts it is best that paragraph which contains the findings be reproduced. It is as below: "Perused the case record. It appears that this suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the eviction of this defendant from the suit premises. It also appears that the plaintiff in its plaint claiming the suit premises on default and personal necessity on being perusai of the plaint, I find that the plaintiff tenanted the suit premises in favour of the defendant no. 1 on account of executed rent note dated 6.1.1996 containing the terms of tenancy. On the other hand plaintiff also stated that tenancy with defendant no.1 started in Jan. 1996 on the monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- per month with an increment of Rs. 1 on account of executed rent note dated 6.1.1996 containing the terms of tenancy. On the other hand plaintiff also stated that tenancy with defendant no.1 started in Jan. 1996 on the monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- per month with an increment of Rs. 100/- per year, and for that he has also filed photo copy of the executed rent note between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. Further this defendant no. 1 also admitted the tenancy with the plaintiff to the suit premises in question. On the other score, another fact appears on the record about the defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 as these two defendants were connected with the defendant no. 1 as they are employee in the suit premises. Now as the matter stands it appears that defendant no. 1 filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. that he has no concern with the suit premises and is not a tenant in the suit premises. On the other hand, defendant nos. 2 and 3 who is presently occupying the suit premises, filed their respective written statement claiming therein to be the tenant of the plaintiff. On perusal of the record l find that the defendant no. 2 moved before the learned House Controller for fixation of the rent of the suit premises and a recorded order passed by the House Controller on 16.8.2002. In this regard defendant no. 3 who is apparently attached with the defendant no. 2 also admitted the defendant no. 2 is the tenant of the plaintiff and he is working employee of defendant no. 2." 6. Seven basic findings have been given by the trial court: (a) The plaintiff landlord gave the suit premises on rent in favour of defendant no. 1 Manoj Kumar, an Advocate of the High Court, (b) Defendant no. 1 Manoj Kumar, an Advocate of the High Court is the tenant. He executed a rent note dated 6 January, 1996 containing the terms of the tenancy; this is on record, (c) The tenancy between the plaintiff Shri Ashok Kumar Sinha, an Advocate of the High Court, and defendant no. 1 Manoj Kumar, Advocate, High Court, the tenant, commenced in January, 1996 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- per month with an increment of Rs. 100/- per year, (d) The execution of rent note between the petitioner-defendant-tenant and the landlord opposite party no. 1 Manoj Kumar, Advocate, High Court, the tenant, commenced in January, 1996 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- per month with an increment of Rs. 100/- per year, (d) The execution of rent note between the petitioner-defendant-tenant and the landlord opposite party no. 1, both advocates at the High Court, is a matter on record, (e) Petitioner defendant no. 1, Mr. Manoj Kumar admitted the tenancy in the context of the suit premises. He subsequently sought standardisation of rent. Only a tenant seeks such a remedy, (f) Defendant nos. 2 and 3 were connected with defendant no. 1 as employees in the suit premises, (g) Having taken out a tenancy, occupied it, agreeing to it by executing a rent note, subsequently inducting defendants 2 and 3 as employees, erodes the sanctity of tenancy, the rent note and applying to the House Controller for fixation of the rent becomes an inequitable plea, specially when the tenant is a lawyer and had executed the rent note. 7. Only these facts are relevant. 8. The rent was fixed at Rs. 1960/- as fair rent per month on the askance of the petitioner-defendants. Thus, by estoppel they are stopped from claiming any other figure to be the rent. They sought it and the rent now is Rs. 1960/- fixed on their initiative. Later opposite party no. 1 Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, the landlord, Advocate, High Court also filed an appeal that the rent be not reduced beyond the terms settled. But he has made a statement before this Court that he will not press the appeal to end all the litigations once and for all. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, opposite party no. 1 stated that between the defendants they have also filed an appeal so as to challenge what was fixed as rent at their instance, be reduced. What will be the measure of equity between the landlord and the tenant. The step to have the rent qualified was at the instance of the tenant, the petitioner defendants. 9. At present what dismays the Court is a matter of concern for members of the Bar as a generality. The respect, the regard and the status of the legal profession is at stake. Half a century ago when a lawyer sought a premises on rent landlords were readily available to give their premises on rent. The Vakil Sahib had a status. The respect, the regard and the status of the legal profession is at stake. Half a century ago when a lawyer sought a premises on rent landlords were readily available to give their premises on rent. The Vakil Sahib had a status. Today if a lawyer seeks a premises the landlord shudders. This is so because an Advocate, as an institution, has erode the faith of landlords when he becomes a tenant. The present case is an example. 10. Entering into a premises then conveniently saying that one is not a tenant is not a stance which an advocate tenant should take. With a recorded finding that Manoj Kumar, defendant no. 1 is a tenant and then telling the High Court through his friend advocate to withdraw the revision after one year is also sharp practice. One litigant, the petitioner is a lawyer and has engaged a lawyer to withdraw a case which was intentionally filed. Telling the High Court that the other defendants have nothing to do with him when the record and the conduct of all of them in concert reveals that all the three defendants are together. When the matter relating to rent fixation was moved before the Rent Controller, the lawyer-petitioner-defendant no. 1 conveniently came out with a camouflage that he was not the tenant and has nothing to do with the business. The trial court records that the lawyer was running a business. That finding of the trial court remains unchallenged. The Court can do no more except notice the record. 11. The premises, the record shows, was being utilised for business. The other question which arises is whether a lawyer in band and gown may carry on business? 12. This is a very unfortunate case that a member of the Bar himself got down to an inequitable conduct, came as a tenant, denied the agreed rent then harassed the landlord to have the rent modulated before the Rent Controller and eroded the faith given to the landlord to pay the agreed rent. If the sanctity of the agreement, the understanding, the commitment given to the landlord would have been there this stage would not have arrived as is being noticed today. The Court cannot help noticing the obligation on the standards of professional conduct and etiquette which are mentioned in The Bar Council of India Rules. If the sanctity of the agreement, the understanding, the commitment given to the landlord would have been there this stage would not have arrived as is being noticed today. The Court cannot help noticing the obligation on the standards of professional conduct and etiquette which are mentioned in The Bar Council of India Rules. These are reproduced: "An advocate shall, at all times, comfort himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the court, a privileged member of the community; and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and a moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his nonprofessional capacity may still be improper for an advocate. Without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing obligation, an advocate shall fearlessly uphold the interests of his client, and in his conduct conform to the rules hereinafter mentioned both in letter and in spirit. The rules hereinafter mentioned contain canons of conduct and etiquette adopted as general guides; yet the specific mention thereof shall not be construed as a denial of the existence of other equally imperative though not specifically mentioned." 13. The Bar of the Court may be the play ground for misplaced litigants. But the Court would not like to see lawyers playing the same game. The court desires that the defendants, all lawyers amongst them unwind themselves from the premises and not continue to violate the standards of professional conduct and etiquette. It is reprehensible that a lawyer gives a solemn undertaking to become a tenant of a landlord who is a colleague advocate, not pay rent, induct other persons and harass the landlord to have the agreed rent modulated. 14. In other parts of the world from where the pattern of the present legal profession has been adopted, if a Barrister were to get caught in default by not paying rent to a landlord and the matter is reported to the Inns of Court it is treated as a conduct unbecoming a lawyer and the possibilities cannot be ruled out that the Barrister may receive a stricture. And for doing business he could be struck off the rolls of the Inns of Court. 15. And for doing business he could be struck off the rolls of the Inns of Court. 15. In the circumstances, the Court is giving an opportunity to the petitioner-advocate-tenant-defendant that it be understood that the petitioner will have to accept the rent which the Rent Controller has fixed. The petitioner is an Advocate. He took the premises on rent which was agreed. To go to the Rent Controller was itself an unprofessional conduct. This rent, fixed by the Rent Controller, arrears and current, will be deposited on or before 20 March, 2004. The landlord opposite party no. 1 Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, an Advocate of the High Court, has made a statement in Court that notwithstanding he has filed an appeal he will accept whatever the Rent Controller has fixed, that is, Rs. 1960/-. 16. In so far as the defendants are concerned, they went to the Rent Controller and what they wanted they got. The landlord is opposite party no. 1 Ashok Kumar Sinha, an Advocate at the High Court. He stated that the Tenants have also filed an appeal that the rent be reduced. The Court is afraid this is inequitable. The damages for use and occupation as fixed by the Rent Controller is the rent, Rs. 1960/-. Also on or before 20 March, 2004 all the defendants will unwind themselves from occupation of the premises. which will be handed over peacefully to the landlord without let or hindrance. 17. Lest there be any attempt to make a technical objection that other defendants are not aware of these proceedings, then the record needs to be set straight. Mr. Manoj Kumar is no other than defendant no. 1 who has brought the civil revision and readily seeks permission to withdraw it. The order which was attempted to be challenged is dated 28 April, 2003 in the Eviction suit. Perhaps, the game was to come one by one. Not mentioned in the present civil revision, and this is concealment, but otherwise it lies on record, at the High Court, that defendant no. 2 also, has made an attempt to challenge the same order. Defendant no. 2 is Radha Krishna Sinha alias R.K. Dadu. He filed civil revision no. 1102 of 2003. The following order was passed on this civil revision: "Defendant no. 2 is the petitioner against the order dated 28.4.2003. 2 also, has made an attempt to challenge the same order. Defendant no. 2 is Radha Krishna Sinha alias R.K. Dadu. He filed civil revision no. 1102 of 2003. The following order was passed on this civil revision: "Defendant no. 2 is the petitioner against the order dated 28.4.2003. The court below has found that prima faice relationship of landlord and tenant is between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and, accordingly, directed tenant-defendant no. 1 to pay rent. The court below has held that there is enough material to show that defendant no. 1 is the tenant. In that view of the matter, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out and, accordingly, this Civil Revision is dismissed." 18. Thus, defendant no. 2 also has made an attempt to dislodge the order of 28 April, 2003 in which defendant no. 1 has been confirmed to be the tenant by the High Court. 19. In the circumstances, regard being had to the findings which have been recorded by the trial court the defendants were only playing a game to come to the High Court one by one. 20. For compliance, put up this matter on 22 March, 2004.