2017 (3) TMI 1843 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking extension of time for vacation of premises - extension sought many times, which was wasting court's precious time - HELD THAT - The petitioners not only took the benefit of an order of the High Court granting them one year s time to vacate the premises but obtained a further extension of a period of four months to vacate. The petitioners then filed a Review Petition before the High Court and moved another application, this time seeking an extension of five years to vacate the premises. The time of the High Court and, unfortunately, of this Court as well had to be devoted to a thoroughly frivolous proceeding - in the earlier proceeding that was instituted in the Small Causes Court, it was found that the premises have been granted under a conducting agreement and there was no relationship of licensor and licensee. That being the position, the petitioners would not acquire status as tenants with effect from 1 February 1973, there being no licence in their favour. Courts across the legal system - this Court not being an exception are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how successive applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. The petitioners shall vacate the premises on or before 7 March 2017 - In case the petitioners fail to vacate the premises by the date indicated, they shall expose themselves to civil and criminal consequences under the law - SLP dimissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing Special Leave Petitions.
2. Nature of the conducting agreement and relationship between parties.
3. Legality of the High Court's orders and undertakings.
4. Abuse of judicial process and frivolous litigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in filing Special Leave Petitions:
The Supreme Court noted a delay of 503 and 522 days in filing the Special Leave Petitions against the High Court's orders dated 2 December 2013 and 22 November 2013. The Court condoned the delay as the petitioners had moved the High Court in a petition for review.

2. Nature of the conducting agreement and relationship between parties:
The dispute involved commercial premises granted under a conducting agreement for a laundry business. The original plaintiff filed a suit for possession, claiming the premises were given on a conducting agreement dated 31 July 1968 with a royalty of ?260 per month. The Small Causes Court initially decreed the suit for eviction on 15 September 1999. However, the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court held there was no licensor-licensee relationship and thus, no jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts' Act. The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging this decision, leading to a fresh suit in the City Civil Court, which decreed possession in favor of the respondents on 5 May 2012.

3. Legality of the High Court's orders and undertakings:
The High Court granted the petitioners time to vacate the premises until 30 November 2014, based on their undertaking. The petitioners later sought and obtained an extension until 31 March 2015. They then filed a Review Petition and sought a further extension of five years, which was dismissed. The Supreme Court found the petitioners' contention that the High Court erred in rejecting the First Appeal without reasons to be without merit. The petitioners had agreed to vacate the premises by a specific date and obtained extensions, indicating they did not intend to pursue further remedies. The Court emphasized that the undertaking was not merely a condition for stay but a final arrangement agreed upon by the parties.

4. Abuse of judicial process and frivolous litigation:
The Supreme Court condemned the petitioners' actions as a blatant abuse of the judicial process. The petitioners took advantage of the High Court's order granting them time to vacate and sought multiple extensions, thereby delaying the inevitable. The Court highlighted that such behavior erodes the sanctity of the judicial process and clogs the legal system with frivolous cases. The Court emphasized the need for imposing exemplary costs to deter such conduct and ensure that genuine causes receive timely justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, directing the petitioners to vacate the premises by 7 March 2017, pay all arrears and costs of ?5 lakhs to the respondents, and warned of civil and criminal consequences for non-compliance. The judgment also clarified that ongoing contempt proceedings against the petitioners would not be affected. The Court stressed the importance of penalizing frivolous litigation to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.