SHRINIVAS Vs. VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is a sad and deplorable tale where a member of the Legal profession is found guilty of abuse of the process of Court; deliberate with-holding of material facts from the Court, resulting in causing unnecessary harassment and expense to the respondent who belongs to the lower strata of the society. The Complainant Shrinivas is a resident of U. S. A. This petition has been filed through the Special Power of Attorney Holder Mr, prahlad, his brother who is an Advocate and resident of Bijapur. The complainant being the owner of the shop filed eviction petition under Section 21 (f) read with Section 51 (2) of the Karnataka Rent control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the respondent herein, in the Court of Principal Munsiff, Bijapur in HRC No. 59/74. The respondent filed objections contending that he had inherited the tenancy rights after the death of his father Thimmaiah who was a tenant under the landlord and in the alternative that he was not a tenant and he was a trespasser and therefore he could not be evicted under the provisions of the Rent Act. The H. R. C. Court passed the eviction order on 18. 11. 1976 holding that the respondent did not inherit the tenancy right and therefore he is liable to be evicted under section 51 (2) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred rent Revision No. 61/76 in the Court of District Judge, Bijapur. The said Revision Petition was allowed by the District Judge on 4. 3. 1977 holding that the H. R. C. Court had no jurisdiction to pass the eviction order against the respondent as he was a trespasser. Being aggrieved the complainant preferred Civif Revision Petition in G. H. P. No. 1019/81 in the High Court. The said revision was allowed on 26. 10. 1983. The order of the District Judge was reversed and that of the H. R. C. Court restored. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred S. L. P. No. 740/84 in the Supreme Court of India. The Special Leave was granted and it was numbered as Civil Appeal no. 3727/90. The Civil Appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court on 15 10. 1997. The order of the High Court and the H. R. C. Court was set aside. The eviction petition was dismissed as the respondent was held to be a trespasser. It was held that the provisions of the rent Control Act were not applicable. The decision of the Supreme court is reported in VENKATESH THIMMAIAH GURJALKAR vs s. S. HAWALDAR1 after the disposal of the appeal by the Supreme Court, the complainant instituted a Civil Suit in O. S. No. 242/98 in the Court of principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur for possession. The respondent was served. He filed the written statement. In the written statement one of the contentions taken by the respondent was that he was not a trespasser. That he was a tenant and therefore the suit was not maintainable. According to the complainant the respondent had taken contradictory stand in the two sets of proceedings. In the earlier proceedings it was pleaded by the respondent that he was a trespasser, whereas in the subsequent proceedings he has taken the stand that he was a tenant. The present petition was filed for initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that the respondent was guilty of obstructing the due Course of judicial proceedings and administration of justice which amounted to contempt of Courts. Notice was issued in response to which reply has been filed. In the reply filed the averments made in the petition have been denied. It has been submitted that taking of inconsistent and contradictory stands in the same proceedings or in the different proceedings does not amount to willfully obstructing the Course of justice amounting to Contempt of Court. Respondent has accused the appellant of suppression of material facts from the Court. It is stated that after the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court, the complainant had filed an application for recalling the said order in which it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by him that the respondent has contended in his written statement filed in O. S. No. 242/98 that he is the tenant. It was also alleged by the complainant that the respondent was playing hide and seek and trying to mislead the Court. Apart from the said application, the complainant also filed an application dated 17. 12. 99 in the Supreme Court to initiate the proceedings for contempt against the respondent mainly contending that the respondent had adopted different stands to suit different proceedings and he is trying to mislead the Courts. The said applications came up before the Supreme Court on 8. 5. 2000 for hearing on which date the I. As. for recalling and the application for initiation of proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act were dismissed. It was observed that cause for initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act was not made out. The present contempt Petition was filed on 1. 3. 2000 without disclosing the fact about the filing of the two applications before the Supreme Court and especially the filing of the I. A. for initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. The same was not brought to the notice of this Court. Had it been done, then this Court could not have issued notice in the Contempt petition which has resulted in causing undue harassment and expense to the respondent. Counsel for the parties have been heard. Counsel for the complainant does not and indeed he could not refute the allegations made by the respondent that the complainant was guilty of with-holding the material facts from the Court. He had filed an application for initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act before the Supreme Court on 17. 12. 1999. The present petition for initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts act was filed in this Court on 1. 3. 2000 without disclosing the fact of filing of the application by him in the Supreme Court for initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act on the same set of facts and on the same cause of action. The allegations made against the respondent in the application before the Supreme Court as well as before us are that the respondent was guilty of taking contradictory and inconsistent stands with mala-fide intentions to obstruct the due course of judicial proceedings and administration of justice. He did not disclose this fact in the petition or thereafter. This fact was not disclosed even after the dismissal of the I. A by the Supreme Court on 8. 5. 2000. Strictly speaking the Contempt petition, before us was not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the similar application filed by the complainant by the Supreme Court. The complainant could not have filed the petition for initiation of proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act in two Courts on the same set of facts and on the same cause of action. Holder of Special Power of Attorney, brother of the complainant who is a practicing Advocate has misused his position as a Lawyer. The Courts expect higher standards of conduct from the members of the legal fraternity. With-holding of facts from the Court is a serious matter. It amounts to misleading the Court. On being asked the Counsel for the complainant failed to give any explanation whatsoever as to why the fact of filing of the application before the Supreme Court for initiation of proceedings under the contempt of Courts Act was not disclosed in this petition. No Litigant much less a member of the legal profession should with-hold the facts from the Court. A member of the legal profession would know better than others that with-holding of the facts from the Court is a serious matter which can result in taking serious action against the person found guilty of doing so. The respondent has been caused unnecessary harassment and expense in defending these proceedings before us. Without saying more on the subject, we close these proceedings and dismiss the petition with costs which are assessed at rs. 5. 000/ -.