GANESH DAS RAM GOPAL Vs. MUNSIF SOUTH LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment Special Appeal No. 499 of 1969 and the connected Special Appeal No. 343 of 1969 are being disposed of which have been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge date 27-3- 1969. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of Messrs Ganesh Das Ram Gopal (briefly stated as the appellant) in part.

(2.) THE facts of the case, necessary for appreciation of the points involved, are as follows: The appellant admittedly is the owner of a building situate in Lucknow known as "Halwasia Court" Hazratganj, Lucknow. On 8-5-1962 the appellant filed an application under Section 7-B of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" against Shamsher Bahadur the appellant of Special Appeal No. 343 of 1969 (briefly stated as the respondent). The appellant alleged in the application under Section 7-B of the Act that the respondent was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1650.00 under the allotment order dated 17th January, 1959 but as he had not paid the rent since 15th December 1958 to 15th April 1962, he was liable to pay the same in the present proceeding under Section 7-B. The total amount claimed by the appellant in this application was Rs. 66,000.00 calculated @ Rs. 1650.00 per month for the period mentioned above. The appellant also prayed that in case the respondent did not pay or did not deposit the amount claimed by him within the statutory period, an order for his ejectment may be passed and the same may be sent to the District Magistrate, Lucknow for execution. The respondent deposited a sum of Rupees 25,000.00 in cash and furnished security for the balance. The details of the security furnished by him were as under: (i) Security Bond of Rs. 25,000.00 by one Akhilesh Tewari; (ii) Security Bond of Rs. 11,000.00 by one Muzaffar Siddiquee; (iii) Rs. 10,000.00 security in the shape of Z. A. L. R. Grant Bonds. The respondent thereafter filed an objection contesting the application made by the appellant on the grounds inter alia, that a portion of the Halwasia Court was allotted to him by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. He alleged that he thereafter filed an application under Sec. 3-A of the Act for determination of the reasonable rent of the accommodation. On 25-9-1959 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer determined the same at Rs. 362.50 n. p. The respondent contended that there was no agreement between the appellant and the respondent for payment of rent @ Rs. 1650.00 and the application under Section 7-B of the Act had been filed by the appellant only to harass the respondent under the impression that the respondent would not be able to deposit the amount or furnish security in respect of the same within time and that the same would entitle the appellant to dispossess the respondent from the premises in his occupation as a tenant. On 31st July 1962, after the objection had been filed by the respondent, the learned Munsif called upon the appellant to pay the requisite court- fees so that the proceedings may be converted into a suit for recovery of rent. The appellant obtained one month's time from the court for complying with its order to deposit the court-fees on the ground that the appellant did not have money in hand at that time to deposit the court-fees. The court thereafter took up the matter on the 8th August 1962 when the prayer for further time for payment of court fees was refused by the learned Munsif. On 9-8-1962 the court quashed the proceedings under Section 7-B of the Act. In the meantime the respondent had filed an application claiming special costs to the tune of Rs. 66,000.00 on the assertion that the application under Section 7-B of the Act filed by the appellant was frivolous and vexatious and, therefore, the appellant was liable to pay special costs upto the amount claimed by him in the application under Section 7-B of the Act. As the appellant wanted time to contest the above application for award of special costs made by the respondent, the learned Munsif registered the said application as Miscellaneous Case No. 83 of 1962 for consideration of the question of awarding special costs. The appellant filed an objection against the claim of special costs made by the respondent. In the application under Section 7-B the respondent had alleged that the landlord had filed the application under Section 7-B with ulterior motive and mala fide designs to disgrace and humiliate the respondent by suppressing the real and correct facts from the court. The respondent had alleged that the rent of the disputed accommodation had already been determined by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and fixed at Rupees 362.50 per month. The appellant knew about this proceeding but deliberately and falsely, on incorrect facts, he alleged that the respondent was liable to pay monthly rent @ Rs. 1650.00.

(3.) SRI Jagdhish Swarup appearing for the appellant challenged the findings of the learned Munsif recorded against the appellant that the claim for the recovery of arrears of rent made by it by means of the application under Section 7-B of the Act, was frivolous and vexatious. He alleged that the learned Munsif drew wrong and incorrect inference from the facts emerging from the record in holding that the application was filed by the appellant for the purpose of harassment of the respondent. It may be noticed that the learned Munsif had referred only to the oral and circumstantial evidence recording the finding that the application under Section 7-B was filed by the appellant with ulterior motive. A number of circumstances have been enumerated by him in his judgment for coming to the said conclusion. The learned Single Judge has summarised those circumstances in his judgment. Considering these circumstances, we find ourselves unable to sustain the submission of the appellant's learned counsel that the finding recorded by the learned Munsif about the claim of the appellant made under Sec. 7-B of the Act, being unfounced, was baseess. The evidence on the record established that the appellant knew about the alleged agreement for payment of rent @ Rs. 1650.00 per month had been found to be void by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 3-A of the Act, hence the respondent was not liable to pay rent at that rate. But the appellant deliberately and knowingly concealed the relevant facts from the notice of the court by not mentioning the same in the application under Section 7-B and filed it with the motive of throwing out the respondent from the premises. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Munsif rightly concluded that the proceedings under Section 7-B were frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the appellant and were aimed at only harassing the respondent. As observed above, the said finding being based on an appraisal of evidence is immune from being challenged in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well established that the High Court in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot convert itself into an appellate court. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is only supervisory. It cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate tribunals. As in the instant case, learned counsel for the appellant failed to satisfy us that the learned Munsif committed any manifest error of law in recording the above finding. We are unable to accede to the argument addressed to us on the above point.