PARUL PRAKASH Vs. ANIL PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's Writ Petition, which has been preferred, by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as against the concurrent judgments, which has been rendered by both the Courts below in a proceedings, which were held under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972, and as a consequence thereto, the release application, which was preferred by the respondents/landlord, seeking release of the tenement, in question, which happens to be a residential accommodation, has been allowed, and the petitioner/tenant, has been directed to vacate the premises and to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of it, to the respondents/landlord, within 30 days from the date of the judgment of the Prescribed Authority.

(2.) Though this Court should have avoided to make this remark, but owning to the deliberate and intentional, modus operandi, which is normally adopted, which has now, become a regular feature, almost in most of the cases, which are filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is constraint to make certain observations, which has been invariably found, to be followed by the learned Counsel, basically intended so as to mislead the Court or to avoid an adjudication of the case on merits and to pose the difficulty to the Court, at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition itself at admission stage, itself, by putting uncalled for documents, which are not even relevant, including the copy of the citation/judgments, on which he wants to rely, as part of the records of the Writ Petition, making the records of the Writ Petition, running into several volumes, and that too in a writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is arising of the concurrent judgments.

(3.) This has been a clear and a consistent device, and a tactics which has been adopted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing voluminous records in the Writ Petition, including the copies of precedent/ judgments, on which, the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which in the instant case happens to be about 20 judgments, which the petitioner's counsel, contends to rely on, in support of his case, as against the concurrent finding of facts, which has been recorded by both the Courts, below and that too in a summary proceedings, which were held, under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972. Though for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, it could be apparently inferred, that even most of the judgments, on which, reliance has been made, are not even relevant for the purposes of consideration of the case, and even they may not be applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case.