9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (4) TMI 1120 - SC - Indian LawsClub entitlement to any equitable relief under Article 136 of the Constitution having regard to its conduct - termination of club's lease for non-payment of lease rent by the Club - charitable trust was the lessor and the Club was the lessee - main contention in the SLP is that they were not parties to the Suit but they may be affected by the orders passed therein - main contention in Club's suit, inter alia, is that the Trust has divested itself from its ownership over the suit property and has ceased to be its owner and as such is not entitled to any beneficiary interest. HELD THAT - In the instant case even though statement made by the Club in its petition u/s 114 of the Transfer of Property Act does not come within the definition of the word pleading' under Order 6 Rule 1 of the Code, but in Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code, the word pleading' has been suffixed by the expression or otherwise'. Therefore, a wider interpretation of the word pleading' is warranted in understanding the implication of this rule. Thus the stand of the Club in its petition u/s 114 of the Transfer of Property Act can be considered by the Court in pronouncing judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 in view of clear words pleading or otherwise' used therein especially when that petition was in the suit filed by the Trust. In so far as non-payment of lease rent is concerned, the Club has admitted it in its written statement in paragraphs (8) and (10). The Club has also admitted it in its reply to the Trust's petition under Order 12 Rule 6 referred to hereinabove. The Club has also admitted non-payment of rent in its petition u/s 114 of the Transfer of Property Act where it sought the equitable remedy of forfeiture and which has been denied to it by the High Court for valid reasons. Here the Club was not facing threat of eviction from anybody excepting the Trust and there is no question of a superior landlord. In the instant case Section 116 prima facie applies and the Club is prima facie stopped from challenging the title of the Trust. In our opinion the Club is not entitled to any equitable relief under Article 136 of the Constitution having regard to its conduct. From the facts discussed it is clear that the Club was very negligent in pursuing its case. Its case was dismissed on several occasions. The Club also adopted dilatory tactics in prolonging the litigation. Even after losing the appeal before the High Court, the Club, through its members initiated several proceedings to stall the execution of the decree and in those proceedings the High Court held that with knowledge of the Club those proceedings by the members were initiated. Even while filing the Special Leave Petition before this Court, initially the members of Club came with the usual plea of not being aware of the eviction proceeding against the Club as they were not parties to the same. On that plea the members initially obtained a stay of the execution proceedings. Thereafter, the Club taking advantage of the existing stay order, filed its SLP. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is basically one of conscience. The jurisdiction is plenary and residuary in nature. It is unfettered and not confined within definite bounds. Discretion to be exercised here is subject to only one limitation and that is the wisdom and sense of justice of the judges For the reasons aforesaid this Court is not inclined to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136. Both the appeals, the one filed by Karam Kapahi Others and the next one filed by the M/s. South Delhi Club Ltd. are dismissed with costs assessed at ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five thousand) to be paid by M/s South Delhi Club to M/s. Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust within four weeks from date. The Judgment of the High Court is affirmed.
Issues Involved:
1. Termination of the lease by the Trust due to non-payment of rent by the Club. 2. The Club's challenge to the Trust's title over the leased property. 3. Application of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) regarding judgments on admissions. 4. The Club's request for relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. 5. The conduct of the Club in the litigation process. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Termination of the Lease by the Trust Due to Non-Payment of Rent by the Club: The Trust terminated the Club's lease due to non-payment of rent. The Trust issued several notices demanding rent, which the Club failed to pay. The Club admitted non-payment of rent in its written statement and in its petition under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court noted that the Club had not paid rent for multiple quarters, which justified the Trust's termination of the lease. 2. The Club's Challenge to the Trust's Title Over the Leased Property: The Club challenged the Trust's title over the property, claiming that the Trust was not the lessor. However, the Court held that under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, a tenant is estopped from denying the title of the lessor during the continuance of the lease. The Club's suit questioning the Trust's title was dismissed, and there was no evidence that it had been restored. 3. Application of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) Regarding Judgments on Admissions: The Court applied Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, which allows for a speedy judgment based on admissions. The Club admitted several key facts: the relationship of lessor and lessee, non-payment of rent, and receipt of the notice of termination. The Court held that these admissions justified a judgment in favor of the Trust. The Club's contention that there was no clear admission was rejected, as the admissions were evident from the pleadings and other documents. 4. The Club's Request for Relief Against Forfeiture Under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act: The Club sought relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, claiming it was willing to pay the arrears of rent. However, the Court denied this relief, noting the Club's inconsistent positions and its failure to comply with previous court orders to pay the arrears. The Court emphasized that equitable relief is discretionary and the Club's conduct did not merit such relief. 5. The Conduct of the Club in the Litigation Process: The Court criticized the Club for its dilatory tactics and inconsistent positions throughout the litigation. The Club repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to comply with court orders. The Court noted that the Club's conduct disentitled it to any discretionary relief under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Club's actions were seen as an attempt to delay the execution of the decree and avoid paying the arrears of rent. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the Club's admissions justified a judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, and the Club's conduct disentitled it to any equitable relief. The Club was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the Trust within four weeks.
|
