BHORI LAL Vs. ADDL RENT CONTROLLER DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions arise out of the allegations of procuring an ex parte eviction order by landlord Bhori Lal against his tenant Kishori Lal by alleged forgeries and other malpractices in the court of III Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. A few days back I had an occasion to examine the mal-practices in one of the Government Departments. That was a case of Nihal Singh v. Union of India, (Civil Writ Petition No. 187 of 1977). The mirror is now turned in words on the judicial institution. In a vibrant democracy all institutions must face a mirror, particularly, the judicial institution. It is because the citizens trust this institution for its objective, impartial and independent decision-making. The Courts of Rent Controller, a Sub-Judge and a Magistrate are courts of first instance. A citizen is required to rush to these courts more frequently than the superior courts to seek justice. These are the first courts of facts. From the point of view of administration of justice, their decisions are of highest importance, because the questions of facts settled at that stage, cannot be upset easily in the superior courts. The alleged tampering of Court records in this case had its echos in Press and Parliament.

(2.) C.M. (M) No. 95 of 1981 challenges the order passed by the III Addl. Rent Controller (Kuldip Singh) on 7-4-19.81. This order was passed when the evidence was being recorded before him on the tenant's application under O. IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside/review of the ex-parte eviction order passed in favour of the landlord. After the evidence of the tenant was recorded the landlord moved an application urging that in view of the 'admission' of the tenant denying his signatures on the affidavit and vakalat- nama accompanying application under O. IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code turther evidence was unnecessary and Police help should be made available to the landlord for enforcing the decree of eviction passed in his favour. The learned Addl. Rent Controller held that the manner in which the statement of tenant has gone on to such a lengthy examination does not show that he had come to the court to admit a decree against him. The Rent Controller, therefore directed the continuation of the evidence in proceedings on the application under O. IX, Rule 13 and rejected the landlord's application. Notice to show cause was issued to the tenant by me on 21-5-1981. In reply to the show cause the tenant contended that the petition under Article 227 was not maintainable as there was no error of law and the order of the Rent Controller was within his jurisdiction. The tenant has also referred to the alleged forgeries and malpractices adopted by Bhori Lal. landlord all through the proceedings in the Rent Controller's court. When the landlord's petition was pending Kishore Lal/tenant filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution being C.M. (M) No. 172 of 1981.

(3.) In the said petition the tenant gave a detailed account of the alleged forgeries and malpractices adopted by Bhori Lal right from the stage of the summons in the eviction proceedings to recording of evidence of the tenant in his application under O. IX. Rule 13. He has also attempted to show how Shri Kailash Chand Gupta, the then Reader of the Court of H.P. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller was a party to the malpractices of Bhori Lal, and how H.P. Sharma, the Additional Rent Controller had failed in his duty. The tenant has also called in question the administrative report of Shri P.L. Singla, Additional District and Sessions Judge, who without giving an opportunity to the tenant held that the allegations of forgery against the landlord were wrong and that the tenant was a dishonest man. It is averred in the petition that it "raises a fundamental and for reaching question of integrity and credibility of the stark operational realities of our system of administration of justice and calls for exercise of the Hon'ble Court's power of superintendence on the facts and circumstances mentioned in the preparatory paragraph and more fully thereafter." Along with Bhori Lal, the landlord, Shri P.L. Singla, Additional District and Sessions Judge, H.P. Sharma, the then Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi, and Shri Kailash Chand Gupta, the then Reader, were joined as party respondents. RespondentsP.L.Singla, H.P. Sharma and Kailash Chand Gupta did not contest the petition.