Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2223 (PNJ)

Sat Paul Kagra v. Prem Lata

2009-12-22

SURYA KANT

body2009
ORDER SURYA KANT, J. (Oral) - This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No.4673 of 2009 and Civil Revision No.7141 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these cases. [2] Both the revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner-tenant against the respondent-landlady. While in the first revision petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 23.5.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, the impugned order in the second revision petition is dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar. The Civil Court as well as the Rent Controller, vide their respective impugned orders, have dismissed two separate applications moved by the petitioner-tenant to permit him to lead secondary evidence to prove “an agreement to sell dated 9.1.1995”. [3] The petitioner is an Ex-Judicial Officer who was shown exit door by the High Court during the probation period. He is now a practising lawyer in the District Courts at Jalandhar. He was inducted as a tenant in the residential house bearing No.EH-149, Shantipura, near Ladowali Road, Railway crossing, Jalandhar City, admittedly owned by the respondent-landlady, who is a Non-Resident-Indian. [4] The respondent-NRI-landlady filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short `the Act'), on 7.4.2001, on the ground that she has decided to return and settle down permanently in India for which she requires the demised premises. The eviction petition was initially filed through one C.K. Bali, her attorney, who is her son-in-law. Notwithstanding the legislative mandate contained in Section 13-B read with Section 18-A of the Act to summarily decide an eviction petition filed by a NRI-land owner-cum-landlord and if so required on day to day basis, the petitioner has successfully stalled the disposal of the said eviction petition by resorting to one or the other dubious methods including arms-twisting of the Judicial Officers dealing with the eviction petition, as well as by dragging the respondent-landlady and her attorney in one or the other false and frivolous litigation(s). Suffice it to observe that the petitioner, owing to his experience as a former Judicial Officer and taking full advantage of his Bar-licence, has not allowed the Rent Controller to proceed with the eviction proceedings. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner, owing to his experience as a former Judicial Officer and taking full advantage of his Bar-licence, has not allowed the Rent Controller to proceed with the eviction proceedings. Left with no option, the respondent-landlady approached this Court in Civil Revision No.751 of 2003 for directing the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, to decide the eviction petition expeditiously and within a specified time. The revision petition was disposed of by this Court on 25.4.2003 with a direction to the Rent Controller, Jalandhar “to decide the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order”. [5] The 'experienced' petitioner still managed to defy the directions compelling the respondent-landlady to again approach this Court by way of Civil Revision No.764 of 2004 in which, after taking notice of the legislative intent behind Section 13-B of the Act, this Court vide order dated 12.2.2004, again directed the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, “to decide the eviction petition within a period of four months providing two opportunities to both the parties to lead their evidence”. Almost six years have passed thereafter but the eviction petition is still not decided. [6] The petitioner, apparently to frustrate the above reproduced directions issued by this Court, has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an alleged `agreement to sell' dated 9.1.1995 said to have been executed by the respondent-Smt. Prem Lata in his favour in respect of the house in dispute. [7] Interestingly, the petitioner moved an application in the aforesaid civil suit to permit him to lead secondary evidence to prove the alleged `agreement to sell' dated 9.1.1995 as, according to him, the `original agreement to sell' was retained by Smt. Prem Lala and only a photocopy of it was given to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have made cash payments towards the entire sale consideration to the respondent on 18.5.1991 (Rs.1,35,000/-), on 2.11.1992 (Rs.6,60,000) and on 9.1.1995 (Rs.4,80,000/-) and that too without even keeping the original agreement to sell, what to talk of asking her to execute the sale-deed after receipt of entire sale consideration. The petitioner claims to have made cash payments towards the entire sale consideration to the respondent on 18.5.1991 (Rs.1,35,000/-), on 2.11.1992 (Rs.6,60,000) and on 9.1.1995 (Rs.4,80,000/-) and that too without even keeping the original agreement to sell, what to talk of asking her to execute the sale-deed after receipt of entire sale consideration. [8] The Civil Court has dismissed the said application vide the impugned order dated 23.5.2009 after observing that there was a long drawn litigation between the parties before 9.1.1995 and it is beyond one's imagination that despite several cases pending between them, the petitioner would pay the entire sale consideration to the respondent in cash on different dates without obtaining any `receipt' or the `original agreement to sell' from her. The Civil Court has taken notice of the fact that there were not one, but several cases between the parties filed even after 9.1.1995 and in none of those cases also, the petitioner (as a defendant) disclosed the factum of execution of the `alleged agreement to sell'. The Civil Court further observed that the petitioner has failed to disclose as to how he got the photostat copy of the alleged agreement to sell dated 9.1.1995 as normally an `agreement to sell' is prepared in duplicate or triplicate and copies are kept by all the parties. As the said agreement has never seen the light of day at any point of time, the learned Civil Court observed that the existence thereof, is highly doubtful and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to lead any secondary evidence. The application has been accordingly dismissed vide the impugned order dated 23.5.2009 (under challenge in Civil Revision No.4673 of 2009). [9] As noticed earlier, the eviction petition filed under Section 13B of the Act is pending against the petitioner since the year 2001. In that eviction petition also, the petitioner moved an application before the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, to permit him to lead secondary evidence to prove the execution of the alleged `agreement to sell' dated 9.1.1995. The said application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, by passing a self-speaking order dated 27.10.2009 which is under challenge in Civil Revision No.7141 of 2009. The said application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, by passing a self-speaking order dated 27.10.2009 which is under challenge in Civil Revision No.7141 of 2009. [10] Both the orders passed by the Civil Court as well as the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, declining permission to the petitioner to lead secondary evidence to prove the alleged agreement to sell dated 9.1.1995, have given rise to these two revision petitions which have been heard together. [11] The petitioner has appeared in person and has given his written submissions also which are taken on record. [12] It is urged in the written submissions that: (i) Mr. C.K. Bali, attorney of the respondent-landlady, is not competent to appear on behalf of the landlady as he was not her attorney in various previously instituted cases between the parties; (ii). The Rent Controller, Jalandhar, as well as the Civil Court have “concealed the competence of C.K. Bali, in their judgments `intentionally'; (iii) the existence of the `agreement to sell' dated 9.1.1995 is proved from its operative clause as in terms thereof, all the court cases were to be dismissed and in fact, the court cases were got dismissed as withdrawn by Smt. Prem Lata on 14.10.1994 and 28.4.1995. (iv) The agreement to sell dated 9.1.1995 is proved from the affidavits of Sohan Lal, stamp vendor and Om Parkash, Steno-typist who typed the same; (v) Mr. C.K. Bali concealed the documents/ facts from the court intentionally but no action has been taken against him; (vi) Since he has moved a transfer application before the District Judge, Jalandhar, the trial Court should have taken notice of it instead of causing any prejudice to him, and (vii) “Sh.Jaspinder Singh, Civil Judge, Jalandhar, has concealed the affidavit placed on the judicial file. He was to be hauled up on the judicial side”. [13] The petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another versus Indusind Bank Limited and others, 2005 (2) Civil Court Cases 324 (SC)”. Besides this, an affidavit filed before the Courts below in support of his plea that there was, in fact, an agreement to sell between the parties, is also relied upon. [14] In addition to the written submissions, I have briefly heard the petitioner-in-person as well as counsel for the respondent and also perused the impugned orders. Besides this, an affidavit filed before the Courts below in support of his plea that there was, in fact, an agreement to sell between the parties, is also relied upon. [14] In addition to the written submissions, I have briefly heard the petitioner-in-person as well as counsel for the respondent and also perused the impugned orders. [15] During the course of hearing, it is pointed out by counsel for the respondent that the petitioner being a former Judicial Officer tries to bully the Judicial Officers who have been dealing with his one or the other cases. [16] At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the petitioner's affidavit dated 29.9.2005 filed in the Criminal Contempt proceedings initiated against him vide Crl.O.C.P.No.5 of 2005, titled as C.K. Bali versus Sat Pal Kagra, which reads as under: “I, the deponsnt, Satpal Kagra son of late Sh. Mansa Ram, age 68 years, resident of 149, Shantipura, Jalandhar, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1. That the petitioner has filed captioned Contempt Petition before this Hon'ble High Court against the deponent. 2. That the deponent apologizes for naming the judicial officers in the complaint filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar which was dismissed on 7.11.2003. 3. That deponent undertake not to repeat and names any judicial officer in future. 4. That the deponent has filed a criminal complaint in the Court of ID. C.J.M. Jalandhar in consonance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court. The said complaint is being investigated by the Police on the order of the ld. C.J.M. Jalandhar.” The above-stated contempt proceedings were statedly dropped against the petitioner in view of his above reproduced unconditional apology and undertaking for decent behavior in future. [17] Learned counsel for the respondent-landlady points out that the repentless petitioner and with his sole object to intimidate the judicial officers, filed Civil Writ Petition No.18373 of 2009 before this Court for declaring the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, ultra-vires of the Constitution. The aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.12.2009 by saddling the petitioner with cost of Rs.20,000/-and after observing as follows:- “We repeatedly asked Mr. S.P. Soi, learned counsel for the petitioner to disclose the material in support of the complaint dated 17.4.2007 and what is the influence wielded by the opposite party in the litigation. Mr. S.P. Soi, learned counsel for the petitioner to disclose the material in support of the complaint dated 17.4.2007 and what is the influence wielded by the opposite party in the litigation. Mr. Soi could not disclose any fact. The petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the judicial order passed in the cases between the petitioner and one Shri C.K. Bali. We do not know that object the petitioner wishes to achieve by levelling irresponsible, baseless and frivolous allegations. If any order on judicial side has been passed it is always open to agitate the matter in appeal or avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. He has taken that recourse by challenging the order dated 27.10.2009 by initiating proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The conduct of the petitioner is contumacious. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed on the judicial side, he should have gone in appeal. It appears that in some cases appeals have also been preferred but still the petitioner has preferred to adopt this peculiar course which is absolutely ill-advised. However, there is nothing in the Act which may be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or otherwise ultra vires or illegal nor any such argument has been raised at the time of hearing. No worthwhile contention has been addressed. In fact at the hearing nothing has been argued challenging constitutional validity of the Act. Therefore, the petition is dismissed and on account of frivolous claim made by the petitioner in the instant petition, we saddle him with costs of Rs.20,000/-, which shall be deposited by him with the Member Secretary, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, within a period of two weeks.” [18] Though the scandalous allegations made by the petitioner against the learned Presiding Officers of the trial Court(s) in utter violation of his own undertaking, are bordering contempt, nevertheless, I have considered his challenge to the impugned orders on merits. In my considered view, the orders passed by the Civil Court as well as the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, declining permission to the petitioner to lead secondary evidence to prove the alleged agreement to sell dated 9.1.1995, are just, equitable and being strictly as per law, warrant no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In my considered view, the orders passed by the Civil Court as well as the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, declining permission to the petitioner to lead secondary evidence to prove the alleged agreement to sell dated 9.1.1995, are just, equitable and being strictly as per law, warrant no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Without expressing any final views at this stage but as the facts would speak for themselves, suffice it to observe that:-(i) Undisputably, there were not one but several court cases pending between the parties before 9.1.1995 and it does not appeal to senses that the petitioner would pay the entire sale consideration in cash to the vendor without even obtaining the receipts; (ii) the original `agreement to sell' is undoubtedly and always kept by the prospective vendee and not the vendor; (iii) the agreement would have contained the acknowledgment of receipt of the sale consideration by the vendor; (iv) had there been any `agreement to sell' on 9.1.1995, the petitioner would have disclosed it in the subsequent litigation(s) between the parties as observed by the Courts below; (v) the petitioner's plea that after the alleged agreement to sell, the cases were withdrawn by Smt.Prem Lata, is false for the reason that one of the ejectment petition was decided on merits on 31.3.1995 by Sh. R.G. Ahluwalia, the then Rent Controller, Jalandhar, i.e. after the so called agreement to sell; (vi) the petitioner would not have waited for 10 years to file a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell; (vii) the civil suit filed in the year 2005 also appears to be a ruse to frustrate the directions issued twice by this Court for expeditious disposal of the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlady under Section 13B of the Act. [19] For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in both the revision petitions which are accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/-in each case i.e., Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is directed to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/-to the respondent-landlady within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. [20] As noticed earlier, the directions issued by this Court vide orders dated 25.4.2003 and 12.2.2004, to decide the eviction petition within 4 months, have been successfully defied. The petitioner is directed to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/-to the respondent-landlady within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. [20] As noticed earlier, the directions issued by this Court vide orders dated 25.4.2003 and 12.2.2004, to decide the eviction petition within 4 months, have been successfully defied. The Rent Controller owes an explanation as to why more than 5 years have passed thereafter and matter is still kept pending. [21] In these circumstances and lest a frustrated, old NRI-landlady starts looking towards our judicial system with suspicious eyes, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the revision petitions with the following directions:- (i) The transfer application, if any, moved by the petitioner before the District Judge, Jalandhar, shall be decided by 31.1.2010; (ii) The Rent Controller, Jalandhar, irrespective of the pendency of the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner, is directed to decide the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landladyon merits and fearlessly before 31.3.2010, even if so required by adjourning the other cases. The non-appearance of the petitioner/his counsel or counsel for the respondent shall be wholly immaterial. Any delaying tactics shall be dealt with strictly by imposing exemplary costs; (iii) In case the petitioner does not appear or fails to produce his evidence, the same shall be closed by court order(s); (iv) The Civil Court shall also decide the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner, expeditiously, fearlessly and in accordance with law. [22] A compliance report shall be sent by 10th April, 2010, failing which the Registry is directed to list this matter again in the 3rd week of April, 2010. Petition Dismissed.