RAM SAHAI Vs. JAI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Peculiar facts have given rise to this appeal. It is a classical example of petty landlord-tenant litigation being dragged on for unreasonable length of time, thanks to procedural tools available to unscrupulous litigants and errors of procedure unwittingly committed in law Courts.

(2.) The suit accommodation is residential held by the tenant/defendant/appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. The plaintiff/respondent is a practising lawyer. It appears that the defendant/appellant No. 1 was a clerk in the office of the plaintiff's father, who too is an Advocate. Presumably this close affinity, and probably the convenience of the Advocate father and son, persuaded them in permitting their clerk occupying their premises as a tenant some time in the year 1974-75. According to the defendant No. 1, he snapped his office relationship with the plaintiff w.e.f. 30-9-1976. The plaintiff must have expected the defendant No. 1 to vacate the premises simultaneously with his dissociating himself with the plaintiff because that was the prime consideration behind creation of tenancy. However, the erstwhile clerk of the plaintiff did not turn out to be that straight, simple and obliging gentleman as the plaintiff had expected of him. The tenant discontinued his residence in the suit premises but instead at restoring back the possession to the plaintiff, passed it on the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, none else than real brothers of the tenant. The defendant No. 1 also withheld payment of rent to the landlord with the result that the suit for ejectment came to be filed on 15-3-1978 after service of demand-cum-quit notice seeking relief on the grounds available under clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (1) of S. 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act" for short).

(3.) The defendant No. 1, and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, filed separate written statements, taking similar pleas. The defendants proved to be disgruntled foes, as is apparent from the manner of drafting the written statements, the language employed therein, the pleas projected and the subsequent conduct of theirs at the trial. Ownership of the plaintiff in the premises was challenged, Insinuations were made stating that the plaintiff's father was indulging in unethical practice and because of the protest raised by the defendant No. 1- the clerk, the advocate-master had threatened him with lesson being taught with the assistance of his clients, the Police, the Court and the society. The written statement filed by the defendant No. 1 was further amended so as to introduce para 21 therein, outwardly enlarging the plea of challenge to the title of the plaintiff, but in reality narrating the dispute which had taken place between the advocate father and son at family partition between them. Several revision petitions were preferred against interlocutory orders and on several occasions this matter had come up to this Court earlier too. All this contributed to long pendency of the case before the trial Court and it could be disposed of only on 2-2-1987 after a long pendency of about 9 years.