BIHARI LAL Vs. RAJINDER LAL BUTAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition against an appellate order of the learned District Judge quashing an interim injunction granted by the trial Court.

(2.) The tenant Bihari Lal filed a suit in the trial Court for a declaration that an order of ejectment dated Oct. 4, 1967 made by the Rent Controller, Simla in favour of the landlord Rajinder Lal Batail was obtained by fraud, suppression of facts and collusion. During the pendency of the suit the tenant applied for an interim injunction restraining the landlord from ejecting him from the premises in dispute and an ex parte interim injunction was granted. An application was made by the landlord for vacating the interim injunction, but the application was rejected and the interim injunction was made absolute. An appeal against that order has been allowed by the learned District Judge, Mahasu and Kinnaur.

(3.) In proceedings taken by the landlord under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment on Oct. 4, 1967. An appeal by the tenant against the order was dismissed on Feb. 17, 1968. The tenant applied in revision to this Court. It appears that during the hearing of the revision petition an attempt was made by the tenant to adduce additional evidence in support of a plea that the ejectment order had been obtained by fraud and collusion. The tenant was not permitted by the Court to raise the plea and to adduce the additional evidence. On June 24, 1969, H. R. Khanna, J. recorded the statement of counsel for the tenant that the revision petition was not pressed. He also recorded the statement of the landlord agreeing to give the tenant 8 months to vacate the premises. Accordingly, the learned judge made an order dismissing the petition but giving the tenant 8 months to vacate the premises. On Jan. 15, 1970, the tenant filed the suit for declaration and injunction mentioned above. In the plaint, he has alleged that he took the premises in dispute on rent and has been in occupation thereof ever since the year 1940-41 and that he has employed it for residential purposes throughout. It is alleged that on Nov. 16, 1958 the landlord procured a writing by way of a rent note in which he fraudulently inserted the clause that the premises in dispute would be used as a godown, but it is asserted that the nature of occupation by the tenant continued to be the same. The plaint goes on to say that on Nov. 9, 1959 the landlord filed a petition for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent and on March 11, 1960 he obtained an ex-parte ejectment order, which was obtained by suppression of summons or notice of the petition and by getting a false report that the tenant was absent at the time of service. It is also alleged that as soon as the tenant's elder brother, Milkhi Ram, was apprised of the warrant for ejectment, he produced the rent receipt given to the tenant upon which the landlord delivered another written document signed by him to Milkhi Ram to the effect that on the tenant's return to Simla a new agreement and lease deed would be executed. In July, 1965 the landlord filed another petition for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. This was followed by still another petition for ejectment filed on Dec. 6, 1966 on the basis of the condition introduced in the rent note of Nov. 16, 1958 that the premises would be used as a godown. The case in the plaint is that by concealing and suppressing facts from the Rent Controller and by practising fraud the landlord secured an ejectment order on Oct. 4, 1967. It is also alleged that the counsel for the tenant failed to appear on the four dates fixed for argument by the Rent Controller because of undue influence and pressure exerted on him by the landlord. It is said that the counsel was a tenant of the landlord's father and brother. The tenant appealed against the ejectment order and he alleged that he then became aware of the order dated March 11, 1960 passed in the earlier ejectment proceedings, and in the belief that the rent note on the basis of which the subsequent ejectment petition had been filed had already lost its legal significance and on the ground that it had merged in the ejectment order of March 11, 1960 he obtained a copy of that order and requested his counsel to file it with the appeal. It is said that the counsel did not do so because of collusion with the landlord. The tenant filed a revision petition to the Delhi High Court and attempted to adduce additional evidence but the Court declined to entertain it. Accordingly, he filed the present suit