9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (2) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice to quit a suit was filed against the defendant-petitioner on 23rd November, 1965. During the pendency of that suit the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent Eviction) Act, 1950, was made applicable by a notification dated 30th March, 1967, to Rajgarh town where the shop is situated. 2. The defendant petitioner had denied having executed any rent note in favour of Bhurdas, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff landlord who had also notified the defendant petitioner of the sale in. favour of the plaintiff by a registered notice dated 25th June, 1965, received by the defendant petitioner on 29th June, 1965. The defendant petitioner pleaded having taken the shop from another individual, Mahant Ram Ratan Das. 3. In the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not challenge the genuineness of the sale deed dated May 17, 1965 executed by Bhurdas in favour of Surajmal. The High Court then quoted the recitals of Ex. 10 showing that the defendant had admitted that the-shop was owned by Bhurdas. to whom he would pay rent. The defendant-petitioner's- second appeal was, therefore, dismissed by the High Court. 5. The defendant-petitioner then filed a special leave petition in this Court under Article 136. Ground No. 7 of the grounds of special leave petition was : That the Hon'ble Court should have appreciated that the rent note Ext. 10 nowhere states that Bhoordas Was the owner of the house and hence the inference of the Hon'ble Judge that the petitioner had admitted that Bhoordas w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defendant petitioner is unable to give any explanation for the false assertion in ground No. VII of his special leave petition except that the learned Counsel had himself misunderstood the document, because of other facts in the case. We are unable to accept this flimsy explanation as a sufficient justification for the false assertion. 9. Reference was made by the learned Counsel for the respondents to The King v. Williams and Ors. [1914] 1 K.B. 608, and The King v. The General Commissioners for the Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the District of Kensington [1917] 1 K.B. 486, which are cases of misleading assertions by petitioners made in affidavits to support grounds for writ petitions. He also cited Asiatic Engineering Co. v. Achr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an hands. If there appears on his part any attempt to overreach or mislead the Court by false or untrue statements or by with holding true information which would have a bearing on the question of exercise of the discretion, the Court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion or if the discretion has been exercised in revoking the leave to appeal granted even at the time of hearing of the appeal. And, Hidayatullah J., said (at p. 493-494) there : The powers exercisable by this) Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are not in the nature of a general appeal. They enable this Court to interfere in cases where an irreparable injury has been caused by reason of a miscarriage of justice due to a gross neglect of law o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
