This revision has been preferred by the revisionist-defendant against the judgment and order dated 23.08.2012, passed by learned Special Judge (Ayodhya Prakran)/Additional District Judge, Lucknow in SCC suit no.50 of 2011, by which the defence of the defendant/tenant/revisionist has been struck off in compliance of provision contained under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff-respondent has put in appearance and filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record. No rejoinder affidavit was sought for by the revisionist-defendant.
I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.
The brief facts, relevant for the purposes of deciding this revision, are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit (SCC) for recovery of arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and for eviction. The notices were issued to the defendant-revisionist, which were sufficiently served upon him on 30.07.2011. The learned trial Court held service of notice sufficient upon the defendant-revisionist vide order dated 09.11.2011 and the defendant-revisionist was required to file written statement within fifteen days. The defendant did not file any written statement, hence the suit was directed to proceed ex-parte against him vide order dated 01.12.2011. The defendant, then, put in appearance and moved an application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was allowed and the order dated 01.12.2011 to proceed ex-parte against the defendant-revisionist was set aside on 12.01.2012. The defendant filed his written statement on 21.02.2012. The points of determination were determined and the suit was fixed for 13.03.2012 for final hearing. The defendant did not deposit any amount of rent, taxes etc. in compliance of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, nor made any deposit as required under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff-respondent moved an application 29-C before the learned trial Court supported with an affidavit paper no.30-C. The defendant-revisionist filed objection paper no.36-C and took a plea that he has entered into an agreement with the plaintiff-respondent to purchase the tenanted premises for Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lac) and the plaintiff-respondent has received Rs.4,00,000/- (four lac) from the defendant. But neither the plaintiff executed the sale deed, nor did refund the earnest money of Rs.4,00,000/- lacs. The poor plaintiff filed his statement of account of the Bank, but the defendant did not file any documentary evidence to even prima facie establish that there was any agreement between the parties regarding sale and purchase of the disputed premises.
The learned trial Court has specifically mentioned that the defendant-revisionist did not make any payment in compliance of the provision contained in Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. An agreement to sell must necessarily be registered and reduced to writing; such heavy transaction cannot take pleas orally. An agreement to sell for Rs.10,00,000/- lacs and giving of Rs.4,00,000/- lacs, as earnest money, is nothing but a fraud on the part of the defendant-revisionist.
It was correctly argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that his client (respondent) is residing at Kolkata and he has let out his apartment to the defendant-revisionist, who is not paying any rent and is continuing his occupation in illegal manner and is not depositing even a single pie before the learned Court. Not only this, the defendant-revisionist has manufactured the false story, which is nothing but sort of a fraud.
"Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago.
The Courts of law should be careful enough to see of such diabolical plans of the mischievous litigants should not encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law's delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system. The dispute being raised by the defendant-revisionist has been raised for the sole purpose of remaining in possession of the disputed accommodation somehow or the other.
The learned trial Court has rightly struck off the defence of the defendant-revisionist. This revision demonstrates how a determined and dishonest litigant can interminably drag on litigation to frustrate the results of a judicial determination in favour of the other side. The history of this litigation shows nothing but cussedness and lack of bona fides on the part of the defendant-revisionist. This is distressing and deserves to be deprecated by imposition of exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- on the revisionist. This is not a mere revision, but an attempt of the tenant to protract the litigation by raising frivolous and fictitious contention. This is nothing but another chapter in the litigative acrobatics of the revisionist, who has determined to dupe and defy the process of the Court to cling on to the apartment. The trick he (defendant-revisionist) has adopted deserves to be nipped in the bud.
I have no hesitation in holding that the tenant-revisionist exhibits the growing tendency of tenants to dilly delay the eviction and, thereby, causing an impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not protect the interest of the landlords.
On the basis of the discussions made above, the revision deserves to be dismissed with costs. While imposing costs, I have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic as to what the plaintiff-respondent had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. This Court is to also broadly take into consideration, the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc. These realities were taken into consideration reasonably by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi and others Vs. Nirmala Devi and others, (2011) 8 SCC, 249.
In similarly situated cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also taken into consideration this aspect of the matter; in Gayatri Devi and others Vs. Shashi Pal Singh 2005 AIR SCW 2070 and Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji Vs. Mahadev Channabasappa and others 2000 SCFBRC 321, and imposed the costs upon the litigant, who has dragged the other party to different Courts, due to malpractices.
Some cantankerous and unscrupulous litigants, on one ground or the other, do not permit the Courts to proceed further in the matter, therefore, in order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. The credibility of the entire judiciary is at stake unless effective remedial steps are taken without further loss of time.
In the result, the revision is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) payable to the landlord, which shall be paid/deposited before the learned trial Court on the next date of hearing, failing which the learned trial Court shall get it realized as arrears of land revenue. The impugned order is confirmed.
Order Date :- 9.10.2012.
Rks.