1997 (12) TMI 666 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and use of the lawn between Cottage No. 6 and Cottage No. 7.
2. Termination of the lease by the appellant.
3. Filing of Suit No. 261/97 by the respondents for specific performance and injunction.
4. Allegations of abuse of court process and contempt by the respondents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and Use of the Lawn Between Cottage No. 6 and Cottage No. 7:
The appellant, owner of Cottage No. 6 within the Shanti Sports Club complex, had entered into a lease deed with the respondent for the residence of the respondent's Managing Director and his family. The dispute arose regarding the lawn between Cottage Nos. 6 and 7, which the appellant was allegedly renting out for events, causing disturbances to the respondent. The respondent claimed that the appellant had assured them that the lawn would remain vacant and be used only by the occupants of the cottages and their guests. The respondent filed Suit No. 3064/96 seeking an injunction to prevent the appellant from renting out the lawn, but no stay was granted by the court.

2. Termination of the Lease by the Appellant:
The lease agreement was for two years, but the appellant terminated the lease by notice dated 10th January 1997, asking the respondents to vacate by 28th February 1997. This led the respondents to file Suit No. 261/97 for specific performance of the agreement to register the lease deed and for an injunction to prevent the appellant from disturbing their possession of the premises.

3. Filing of Suit No. 261/97 by the Respondents for Specific Performance and Injunction:
The respondents filed Suit No. 261/97 on 4th February 1997, seeking specific performance of the lease agreement and an injunction. The court granted an ex-parte interim order of injunction on 6th February 1997, restraining the appellant from disturbing the respondent's possession of the premises. The appellant appealed against this order and filed a contempt petition, alleging that the respondents had abused the court process by not disclosing the earlier suit and the lack of stay granted therein.

4. Allegations of Abuse of Court Process and Contempt by the Respondents:
The appellant contended that the respondents had committed an abuse of the court process by filing a second suit with almost identical pleadings and reliefs as the first suit, without disclosing the lack of stay granted in the first suit. The court compared the pleadings and reliefs in both suits and found them to be almost identical. The court held that the respondents had not disclosed material facts and had attempted to overreach the court. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, emphasizing that a litigant must come to court with clean hands and disclose all relevant facts. The court concluded that the respondents had played fraud on the court and the opposite party, and were guilty of contempt. The court dismissed Suit No. 261/97 and issued a warning to the respondents to be more careful in the future.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appellant's appeal, dismissed Suit No. 261/97, and disposed of the contempt petition by issuing a warning to the respondents. The court emphasized the importance of litigants coming to court with clean hands and disclosing all relevant facts to avoid abuse of the judicial process.