9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (5) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f'-in respect of a piece of land situate in the town of Ahmedabad. The rent of the land as originally stipulated was ₹ 411/- per annum, and it was by mutual agreement enhanced to ₹ 851/- per annum in 1948. The plaintiff filed suit No. 2014 of 1952 against the defendant in the Court of Small Causes exercising jurisdiction under s. 28 of the Bombay Rents and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (Act 57 of 1947) for an order in ejectment against the defendant on the plea amongst others that the latter had made default in payment of rent due by him. The defendant contended inter alia that the rent stipulated was in excess of the standard rent payable by him. The Trial Court assessed the standard rent payable by the defendant at ₹ 446/per annum and holding that the defendant had not made default in paying rent, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Against that decree the plaintiff-preferred Appeal No. 450 of 1953 to the District Court at Ahmedabad. On October 1, 1954 the defendant deposited in the District Court ₹ 400/- to the credit of the plaintiff. The appeal instituted by the plaintiff was not prosecuted, and the amount of ₹ 400/deposited to the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases, if any, and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of this Act ; and sub-s. (3) cl. (b) provides that In any other case, no decree for eviction shall be passed in any such suit, if, on the first day of hearing of the suit, or on or before such other date as the Court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and thereafter continues to pay or tender in Court regularly such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court. It is common ground that the claim made by the plaintiff falls within the description -'In any other case . The High Court assumed that even if the tenant has not paid into court the standard rent and permitted increases due on the first day of hearing of the suit, the-Court may still in the exercise of its discretion refuse a decree to the landlord in ejectment, provided all the arrears of rent and costs of the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the defendant. It was submitted in the petition that the defendant's case fell strictly within the terms of s. 12(3) (b) and that the High Court was in error in holding that it had any discretion to refuse relief to the defendant, after the defendant complied with the terms of that sub-section in the matter of deposit. The petition was sworn by the defendant. He has affirmed that the facts stated in paragraphs I to 32 were true to his own knowledge an the submissions made therein were believed by him to be true, and that the petition concealed nothing nor was any part of it false or untrue. He also affirmed in his affidavit, that he had -instructed counsel in the Courts below and that he was instructing counsel in this Court in respect of the special leave petition . The finding of the High Court, on a question of fact which to the knowledge of the defendant was erroneous, was made the foundation of what was asserted to be a substantial question of law of general or public importance. If the High Court was not persuaded to take the view which it did in the matter of the deposit of ₹ 4001- no further question would have survived; at least n3one such appears to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ajendragadkar J. speaking for the. Court observed: It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In that case the Court revoked the leave granted because the appellant had made certain inaccurate and misleading statements in his petition for leave to appeal to this Court. Those statements were, in the view of the Court, misrepresentations of fact and the Court being satisfied that the appellant had deliberately made those misleading and untrue statements (1) [1964] 2 S. C. R. 203. revoked the leave. In another case which was brought to this Court with special leave S. R. Shetty v. Phirozeshah Nursservanji Colabawalla (1), an attempt was made by the appellant in the petition for special leave to value the property in dispute at more than ₹ 20,00O/'- when in fact he had valued the same property in another litigation at ₹ 500/-. The Court in revoking the leave observed: The appellant deliberately chose to inflate the valuation of the property so as to obtain the special leave. We have no doubt th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e judgment of the Courts below and claims relief on the footing that the findings are correct, when to his knowledge the findings cannot be sustained and the findings have been so recorded because the Courts below have been misled on account of representations for the making of which he was either directly or indirectly responsible. In our judgment the petition filed before this Court was misleading. Counsel for the defendant also submitted that be was prepared to argue the appeal on the footing that the High Court was in error in reversing the judgment of the District Court on the question about the withdrawal of ₹ 4001-. If, however, the defendant has by misleading the Court obtained an order granting special leave and has under the protection of that order remained in possession of the property in dispute for a period of three years, it would be putting a premium upon the unfair conduct of the defendant to permit him to argue the appeal on some footing other than that on which the case was argued in the High Court, and to argue which presumably no special leave would have been granted. Special leave to appeal is therefore revoked. The appellant will pay costs of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn. The High Court held that this was so but held that it had a discretion in the matter and the tenent by his conduct over the years had deprived himself of any consideration. The application for revision was dismissed. In applying for special leave against the order of the High Court, the tenant quoted a long extract from the judgment of the High Court where it spoke of this deposit, and then went on to say : The petitioner submits that the High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that as there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner had withdrawn the sum of ₹ 400/deposited by him in the earlier appeal, the petitioner was not in arrears of rent and had paid the costs at the date of the judgment.' This allegation was supported by the usual affidavit which stated that the facts in the petition were true and that the petition concealed nothing. Strictly speaking, the facts were as they were pleaded in the petition, but there was more. There was one fact particularly within the knowledge of the tenant and it was that he had withdrawn the amount on January 19, 1957, and he was in default even before the judgment of the court of first instance was g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
