1963 (5) TMI 60 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Withholding of material facts by the appellant.
2. Interpretation of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947.
3. Discretionary power of the court in granting relief under Section 12(3)(b).
4. Misleading the court in the petition for special leave.
5. Revocation of special leave granted by the Supreme Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Withholding of Material Facts by the Appellant:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the special leave to appeal must be vacated because it had been procured by the appellant without disclosing all the material facts. The appellant, a tenant, had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 400/- deposited in a previous appeal before the suit was disposed of by the Trial Court. This fact was not disclosed in the petition for special leave, which created a misleading impression that the amount was still available. The appellant's deliberate attempt to withhold this information from the court and his advocate was deemed a serious misconduct.

2. Interpretation of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947:
Section 12(3)(b) stipulates that no decree for eviction shall be passed if the tenant pays or tenders in court the standard rent and permitted increases on the first day of hearing or before a date fixed by the court, and continues to pay such rent and costs of the suit as directed by the court. The High Court assumed that even if the tenant had not paid the standard rent on the first day of hearing, the court could still exercise its discretion to refuse a decree for eviction if all arrears and costs were paid before the suit was disposed of. This interpretation was central to the case, but the Supreme Court noted that this question would only be relevant if the tenant had indeed deposited the required amounts, which was not the case.

3. Discretionary Power of the Court in Granting Relief under Section 12(3)(b):
The High Court held that it had the discretion to refuse relief to the tenant based on the tenant's conduct, even if the tenant had complied with the terms of Section 12(3)(b). The tenant's conduct over the years, including not paying rent except in court and withdrawing the deposit, led the High Court to exercise its discretion against him. The Supreme Court agreed that the tenant's conduct disentitled him to any discretionary relief.

4. Misleading the Court in the Petition for Special Leave:
The Supreme Court found that the tenant had misled the court by not disclosing the withdrawal of Rs. 400/- and by creating an impression that the High Court's finding on this matter was correct. The petition for special leave contained statements that were inaccurate and misleading, which amounted to an attempt to overreach the court. The Supreme Court emphasized that any attempt to mislead the court or withhold material information would result in revocation of the leave granted.

5. Revocation of Special Leave Granted by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court revoked the special leave granted to the tenant, noting that the jurisdiction of the court under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases. The tenant's conduct in withholding material facts and misleading the court forfeited his claim to the exercise of this discretion. The court emphasized the importance of full candor and honesty when seeking special leave to appeal.

Separate Judgment by Hidayatullah, J.:
Hidayatullah, J. concurred with the decision to recall the special leave and emphasized the importance of full disclosure when approaching the Supreme Court under Article 136. He noted that the tenant's deliberate withholding of the fact that he had withdrawn the deposit before the trial court's judgment was a serious misconduct. He stressed that the powers under Article 136 are meant to remedy serious injustice and are not intended for cases where a party is in default of rent due to withdrawing a deposit. The tenant's disingenuous conduct in making out a point of law based on a fictional state of facts led to the revocation of the special leave.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court revoked the special leave to appeal granted to the tenant due to his deliberate withholding of material facts and misleading the court. The court emphasized the importance of honesty and full disclosure in petitions for special leave and underscored the discretionary nature of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The tenant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.