Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Opposite party Nos. 1 & 2.
Opposite party No. 2 being the caveator. Opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 are the real brothers of the petitioner.
Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner has averred that she was married in the year 1982 and started living with her husband Sri Sabbir in Gosainganj, Lucknow.
After divorce from her husband, she came to Sadar Bazar, Lucknow on 01.01.1996 and one Haji Nanhe, son of late Badloo, resident of House No. 654, Azad Mohal, Sadar Bazar, Lucknow Cantt. accommodated her and her sons in one ground floor room and a tin shed at first floor and open roof at first floor of House No. 700, Azad Mohal, Sadar Bazar, Lucknow Cantt which was in occupation of Haji Nanhe. That the Opposite party No. 2 filed petition under section 21 U.P. Act XIII of 1972 Smt. Fatima Gazala vs. Sajid Ali and others for release of House No. 700, Azad Mohal, Sadar Bazar, Cantt. Lucknow which was registered as P.A. Case No. 05/2005. Though, she never paid any rent to him. The learned Prescribed Authority held that the relationship of the tenant and the landlady exist between Opposite party No. 2 & 4. But the portion, released, has not been specified, that the petitioner moved an application under Section 34 U.P. Act XIII of 1972 read with Rule 22 which has been dismissed. The petitioner is facing threat of eviction, and, as such, the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing order dated 21.07.2012 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Misc. Case No. 2 C of 2012 and for P.A. Execution Case No. 7 of 2012.
Interestingly, there was a litigation, in which, the brother and mother of the petitioner, who was the father of the Opposite party No. 2 were party, in writ petition No. 5967 (R/C) of 1989 and, a substitution application was moved, in which the name of the petitioner did not find place. But admittedly, the father of the petitioner Abid Ali died on 26.12.1994 was originally the tenant of the disputed premises. The petitioner has suppressed that the opposite party No. 2 has brought to the notice of this Court, through counter affidavit with copy of written statement filed by Sajid Ali (Opposite party no. 3) in which it was pleaded that the petitioner is his divorced sister and, as such, she is living in the house, which is in accordance with the Rent Control law. These facts have been reiterated in Paras 2 and 11 of the written statement filed before the Learned Prescribed Authority. But the petitioner has pleaded before this Court in Para 6 of the writ petition that she is occupying portion on behalf of one Haji Nanhe. These averments are obviously made in order to play fraud with this Court. Not only this, the petitioner has filed Rejoinder Affidavit on 14.08.2012 in which the objection filed by her before the Learned Prescribed Authority under Section 23 U.P. Act XIII of 1972 have been suppressed with obvious intention to derail justice and to mislead this Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath reported in AIR 1994, Supreme Court 853 has held that "Frauds avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It s the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree-by the first court or by the highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.
..........The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
Admittedly, Sajid Ali (O.P. No. 3), who is the real brother of the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 before the Learned District Judge, which is pending, in which no stay/interim or otherwise has been granted by the Learned District Judge. Since, there is no stay order, the opposite party No. 2 being the landlady has moved an application for enforcement of the eviction order, in which, it is provided under section 23 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972that the Prescribed Authority may use or cause to be used as may be necessary for evicting any tenant against whom the order is made, under Section 21, against any other person found in actual possession, and for putting the landlord into possession. I have laid emphasis, as above, in order to show the intention of the legislature to get the order of release enforced. Pending all these proceedings, the petitioner has approached this Court on untrue facts to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Present writ petition is an attempt to keep the premises occupying on one or the other dirty trick showing the general tendency of the tenants.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramjas Foundation and another vs. Union of India and others reported in (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 38,has held that "The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case."
In Atmaram Properties v. Federal Motors, reported in 2005 (1) SCC 705, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"The landlord/tenant litigation constitutes a large chunk litigations between in the Courts and tribunals. The litigation goes on for unreasonable length of time and the tenants in possession of the premises do not miss any opportunity of filing appeals or revisions so long as they can, thereby, afford to perpetuate the life or litigation and continued in occupation of the premises."
In T.Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another, reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the court process and makes decree with judicial seals brutum fulmen. The long arm of the law must throttle such litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community in the judicature is to survive."
Later on in Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji v. Mahadev Channabasappa & ors, reported in 2000 SCFBRC 321, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"It is distressing to note that many unscrupulous litigants, in order to circumvent orders of the courts adopt dubious ways and take recourse to ingenious methods including filing of fraudulent litigation to defeat the orders of the courts. Such tendency deserves to be taken serious note of and curbed by passing appropriate orders and issuing necessary directions including imposing or exemplary costs."
In Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar & anr., reported in 2003 AIR SCW 7158, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment-debators to deny the decree-holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law's delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system."
In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case has further held as under:
"In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others (2008) 12 SCC 481, the court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others (2009) 3 SCC 141."
In Dalip Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that:-
"1. Truth constited an integral part of the justice delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.
2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed to not have any respect for truth. they shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants. the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure foundation of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."
In view of the law as discussed above, I find that the petitioner has filed this writ petition, with the sole intention to continue to occupy the premises, in which she is in occupation, as a widowed daughter of the deceased landlord, and has been inducted by her brothers on humanitarian and compassionate ground into the premises as a matter of course, without permission of the landlord. In order to retain such possession, she has bluntly played fraud upon this Court. Her conduct deserves to be deprecated which is nothing short of "Civil Fraud." She deserves to be thrown out mercilessly, save as provided by law. She does not deserve any sympathy or discretion by any instrument of justice delivery system.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with special costs of Rs. 25,000, which shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
Order Date :- 23.8.2012 Nitesh