SARDAR JASBIR SINGH Vs. MALIK MUKHBAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution directed against an order of the 1t Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dated 5th March, 1968, requiring the petitioner's counsel to withdraw from the ejectment proceedings pending against the petitioner. The view that I am taking of the matter renders it unnecessary to state the facts very elaborately.

(2.) Malik Mukhbain Singh, respondent herein, (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord'), filed a petition for ejectment against the petitioner, which is pending in the Court of the 1st Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The petitioner was, and is being, represented by Sardar Janak Singh, Advocate. The Advocate, when called upon to admit or deny certain documents, admitted some but denied the rest. The landlord then made an application that the Advocate be examined as a witness. It is the claim of the landlord that before doing so he even issued interrogatories to the petitioner to admit or deny those documents but the interrogatories were not answered. Having failed to secure the admis- sion and/or denial of the documents, which consist of pleadings and depositions in suits filed by the petitioner against his tenants, the landlord filed the application for examination of the Advocate as a witness. It appeals that at least one of the grounds adduced by the landlord in seeking ejectment of the petitioner is the personal bona fide requirement of the premises and the landlord wanted to prove certain depositions and pleadings in suits filed by the petitioner against his own tenants in in another building. Order dated 17th October, 1967, passed by the 1st Additional Rent Controller, records that :-

(3.) A faint suggestion was made on behalf of the petitioner that the depositions and pleadings being public documents could be proved by producing certified copies. That is not a matter which calls for decision in this petition for the fact remains that the Advocate did appear as a witness. Moreover, it is doubtful whether all those documents could be proved by producing certified copies. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has impugned the order of the 1st Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dated 5th March, 1968, and he says that the order deprives the petitioner of the services of the Advocate in whom he has a great faith and confidence. The 1st Additional Rent Controller has relied on Alt India Reporter Ltd. v. G. D. Moghe, as authorising a Court in exercise of its inherent power to direct withdrawal of a counsel, from a case if the Court comes to the conclusion that withdrawal is conducive to the proper trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner principally relied on Chenna Reddi Vena Reddi and another v. Chillakwu Rama Chandra Reddi and another, (Andhra Pradesh High Court). In that case an Advocate was prohibited from appearing on behalf of one of the petitioners. Mohammed Mirza, J. held that-