H P VAID Vs. PARVEEN SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition following two questions arise for consideration:

(2.) First the facts in brief. Mrs. Praveen Soni/respondent claimed herself to be the tenant of premises No. A-2/37, Krishan Nagar, Delhi under the petitioner Mr. H.P.Vaid at a monthly rent of RS.-IOOO.00 excluding water and electricity charges since 1984. Though the petitioner had obtained signatures on various documents of Praveen Soni and her husband, the petitioner was not issuing rent receipts. The respondent sent advance rent for the month of September, 1985 through money order which was duly acknowledged but as rent up to 30th April, 1995 by Mr. Vaid in his own writing. She filed a suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner H.P.Vaid contested the suit, for according to him, the premises were entrusted to the respondent Parveen Soni as Principal of the said college on 16.2.1994. The relations between the parties were of master and servant and not of landlord and tenant. The petitioner also claimed in his reply that the money order, which was sent, related to payment of dishonoured cheque of Rs. 5,000.00 issued on 30.4.1995. Initially the injunction was granted by the learned Sr. Sub Judge. Subsequently, the petitioner moved application under Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code . before the learned Sr. Sub Judge claiming that the money order filed by the respondent Praveen Soni was forged and prayed that a complaint should be lodged. The learned Sr. Sub Judge accepted the prayer in the application. However, it also appears that during the pendency of the proceedings, after taking some amount the petitioner accepted the respondent as tenant and issued receipts. According to Parveen Soni, the petitioner has abused the process of the Court by getting different orders of the Court published in different newspapers and pasting them outside the court room, school and her residence.

(3.) The learned M.M. convicted the accused Parveen Soni under Section 193/196/209/210/471/511 Indian Penal Code and holding that the respondent being a lady and principal of the College having clean antecedents and having a major and minor children released the petitioner Parveen Soni by granting benefit of probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short). She filed an appeal against her conviction but the same was dismissed.