CONSTELLATE CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SHAMMI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case provides a good example of abuse of the process of Court by a party to the suit. Asimple suit for recovery of posssession of a premises located ir. South Extension Part II, New Delhi after termination of tenancy of the tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been successfully dragged on by the tenant for almost ten years and that too without paying a penny towards rent. The premises subject matter of the present appeal comprising three bed rooms with three attached bath rooms, a drawing-cum-dinning room, garrage, servants quarter and courtyard, was let out to the appellant by the respondent on 2nd April, 1985 at a rental of Rs. 3,500.00 per month. Another servant quarter was let out to the tenant in the year 1986 and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 4.000.00 per month. The appellant/tenant continued to pay the rent @ Rs. 4,000.00 per month till 31st August, 1988 whereafter in view of the introduction of Legislation in the Parliament for amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act so as to take the tenancies where rent was above Rs. 3,500.00 per month out of the purview of the said Act, the tenant sent two cheques towards rent in the month of September, 1988 to the landlady - one for Rs. 3,500.00 while the other for Rs. 500.00 . The rent was sought to be split in order to make out a case that the rent was not above Rs. 3,500.00 per month so that the premises would remain covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The landlady naturally refused to accept the rent sought to be paid in this manner. Vide letter dated 6th October, 1988, the landlady formally refused to accept the two cheques and demanded payment of rent by one cheque as before. The tenant did not comply with this and a notice of termination of tenancy was issued on behalf of the landlady on 24th December, 1988 terminating tenancy of the appellant w.e.f. 31st January, l989 and demanding arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st September, 1988.Earlier also the landlady had got a notice of termination of tenancy dated 30th January, 1988 issued to the appellant which is Ex. Public Witness -1/39. The appellant replied to the notice through Advocate vide Ex. Public Witness -1 /40 dated 28th March, 1988, It is significant to note that in this reply it was admitted that the rent of the entire premises was Rs. 4,000.00 per month w.e.f. the year 1986. The appellant also got a notice issued to the respondent landlady on 6th June, 1988 Ex. Public Witness -1/41, wherein the appellant specifically stated that the rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 4,000.00 per month. Ultimately the landlady filed the present suit for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises and for arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st September, 1988 to31st January, 1989 @ R.s. 4,000.00 per month. The landlady further claimed damages for use and occupation of the premises w.e.f. 1st February, 1989 @ Rs. 4,400.00 per month along with interest.

(2.) . With the filing of the suit started thereat misery of the respondent landlady because w.e.f. 1st February, 1989 till today she has neither received a penny by way of rent or use and occupation charges from the appellant/tenant nor she has been able to obtain possession of the premises. The learned Addl. District Judge has in the impugned judgment given the entire history of how the proceedings in the suit were dragged on at the instance of the appellant, who was the defendant in the suit before the Trial Court. In this connection, the following observations of the trial Court are worth reproduction:

(3.) . The learned trial Judge has devoted nearly seven pages in the impugned judgment giving long history of how the proceedings were dragged on by the tenant. We do not intend to reproduce all the details for sake of brevity. However, we consider it important to note that the plaintiff/respondent completed her evidence on 11th July, 1991 whereafter the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendant on 12th August, 1991. The defendant did not produce any evidence till the last. Ultimately the Trial Court had to strike off the defence of the appellant whereafter it proceeded to judgment. During the course of this approximately seven years period, the defendant/appellant was proceeded ex-parte thrice and every time on applications moved by the appellant in this behalf, the ex-parte orders were recalled subject to payment of costs. On first restoration, the cost was Rs. 50.00 . The second restoration was subject to costs of Rs. 400.00 while the third restoration was subject to payment of Rs. 20,455.00 and the entire arrears of rent @. Rs. 3.500.00 per month which was the admitted last paid rent according to the appellants. This the tenant did not comply with. The Trial Court while disposing of the application under Order 9, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code on 16th May, 1997 also disposed of another application under Order 1, Rule 10 moved by another company controlled by the appellant No. 2. The application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code was dismissed while the application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code was allowed as stated above. The order on the application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code was challenged by the appellants by way of a revision petition in this Court. The revision petition was dismissed in limine on 21st July, 1997. Besides, the appellants being proceeded ex- parte and the ex-parte orders being recalled by the Trial Court on three occasions, the appellants were granted adjournment for producing evidence on various dates and sometimes subject to payment of costs. The appellants also twice moved transfer applications the object where of was only to protract the Trial Court of the suit while there was no genuine reason for transfer of the case. The appellants also moved application under section 9 and Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint. The said application was dismissed with costs on 4th November, 1995. The revision petition filed against the said order in this Court was also dismissed in limine. Ultimately, the defence of the appellants was struck off on account of their failure to comply with the conditions contained in the order dated 16th May, 1997 regarding payment of entire arrears of rent.