NAZNEEN ILLIYAS HANNAN Vs. PRESIDENT SHILLONG MUSLIM UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is, to say that least, a bizarre case. One could shudder to think that the type of allegations made by the appellant was actually happening in the temple of justice. I have been told that the concerned judicial officer has since then retired from service. On the undisputed facts on record, nothing short of dismissal and criminal proceeding could have done justice to the appellant. I only hope that this is merely a stray case as otherwise the very confidence of the litigant public in the judiciary would be shaken or destroyed beyond repair.

(2.) THE case of the appellant, in a nutshell, is that late J. G. Hannan, an ex-serviceman, who is the husband of the appellant, was the tenant of the respondents in respect of a portion of the building known as Shillong Muslim Union Guest House, located at Quinton Road, Shillong. The said J. G. Hannan was during his lifetime running a hotel under the name and style of "hotel Seven Sisters". Originally, the tenancy was in respect of one portion in the second floor of the building under an unregistered tenancy agreement dated 25. 7. 1989 for a period of 72 months at a monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- but renewable for a period to be mutually agreed upon the by the parties at an enhanced rent. At the commencement of the tenancy, this tenant paid an advanced rent of Rs. 2,16,000/- to be adjusted against the monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/-, which was enhanced from time to time the last rent whereof came to be fixed at Rs. 9,000/- per month. When the hotel was doing a flourishing business and cordial relationship between the parties established, the respondent is said to have agreed to let out the top floor of the same building as well with some additional space to the original tenant. For this, the husband of the appellant is said to have paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only in advance to the respondent for construction of the top floor, this advance payment being adjusted against the monthly rent so payable, which was fixed at Rs. 8,000/ -. In these circumstances, the entire second floor and the top floor came to be under the occupation and use of the husband of the appellant as a tenant for running the hotel in question with a total house rent of Rs. 17,000/- per month. According to the appellant, all monthly rents had been regularly paid by her husband during his lifetime, and receipts had also been issued therefor.

(3.) THE further case of the appellant is that her husband died on 9. 2. 2005 at Appollo Hospital, Chennai, leaving behind him herself and their two sons to inherit all his properties and that she accordingly inherited the hotel business and thereby stepped into the shoes of her husband as the tenant under the respondents. The appellant thereafter filed an application in the trial court for substituting her husband by her as his legal representative. The respondents filed their written objection against her application. The trial court by the order dated 20. 5. 2005 rejected the application for substitution and thereafter disposed of the suit purportedly on abatement. Taking advantage of this order, the respondents, just two days after the death of the husband of the appellant, managed to seal the hotel through the authorities of the Municipal Board, Shillong in order to throw the appellant out of the premises and close down the hotel business. This led the appellant to approach this Court by filing WP (C) No. 1106 of 2005, which is still pending. It is claimed by the appellant that she was never aware of the date fixed for hearing of the suit or of the passing of the order dated 20. 5. 2005 as she was never intimated by her counsel. Subsequently, when she came to learn the rejection of her substitution application, she immediately filed Civil Revision No. 21 (SH) of 2005 before this Court challenging the legality of the order dated 20. 5. 2005, which was moved on 20. 6. 2005 by serving an advance copy to the counsel for the respondents as caveator. However, on 20. 6. 2005, the counsel for the respondents/caveators asked for three days time and verbally assured the Court that the respondents would not take any step for evicting the appellant, whereupon this Court by the order dated 20. 6. 2005 directed the parties to maintain the status quo.