K R SINGH Vs. A G THAKURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 17-6-1989 passed by an Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The dispute is within a very narrow compass in so far as the present petitioner has contended before this Court that having regard to the exceptional facts and circumstances and the background of the present case that impugned order of Court of Small Causes at Bombay is not only erroneous but would have to be characterised as perverse and, therefore, would have to be interfered with. The facts, as will be anumerated by me, disclose a most distressing and unsatisfactory state of affairs.

(2.) THE present petitioner claims to be residing in a flat on the first floor of a building by the name of "clark House", situated at 8, Wodahouse Road, Bombay-400 039. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the flat in the capacity of an obstructionist, and present respondent No. 1 clams to be an occupant in respect of a part of the same premises. It may be stated here that respondent No. 1 is a lady and is a practising Advocate. There has been a history of three-cornered litigations spanning over two decades relating to the dispute that is the subject-matter of the present proceedings in the course of which one or more of the parties had occasion to bring the matter upto the High Court on more than one occasion. We are, however, not concerned directly with that aspect of the matter.

(3.) THE present respondent No. 1 had instituted Rent Act Declaratory Suit No. 289 of 1976 before the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, praying for a declaration to the effect that respondent No. 1 should be treated as the tenant of the trustess/ landlords or, in the alternative, should be declared as a protected licensee/tenant of the present petitioner. It appears that this suit, instituted in the year 1976, was dismissed for default on 17-6-1981. A notice was taken out for restoration of the suit which came to be discharged by the Court on 28-6-1983, the Court in its order holding that neither just nor sufficient cause was shown and that, consequently, no case was made out for the restoration of the suit. Against this order, respondent No. 1 filed Appeal No. 630 of 1983, which appeal was taken up for hearing on 20-7-1987 after a lapse of 4 years, and virtually 6 years and one month after the date of the dismissal of the original suit. The Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes dismissed the appeal as the appellant and her Advocate remained absent. On the next day, i. e. , on 21-7-1987, respondent No. 1 filed interlocutory Notice No. 4071 of 1987 with a prayer that the order of dismissal of the appeal be set aside and that the appeal be heard on merits. The present petitioner contest the correctness of the grounds set out in the application and the Court after hearing the parties, by an order dated 19-6-1989, indicated that even though the Court was not at all satisfied or happy with the state of affairs that merely because it was of the view that substantial justice should be done and that technicalities should not come in the way of litigants being heard by the Court that it reluctantly set aside the order dismissing the appeal and directed that the matter be restored. The Court also awarded costs of Rs. 350/- as condition precedent, but the Court apparently did not restore the application that had been filed by the present petitioner and which was pending in which the present petitioner had contended that respondent No. 1 be directed to deposit the arrears of rent in the Court.