Balbir Singh and Another vs Sunny Jain

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—This petition is a classic case of abuse of process of law at the instance of the tenant-petitioners. The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 for eviction of the petitioner-tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent and that the demised premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Upon notice, the petitioner No. 1 failed to appear and ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioners vide order dated 31.10.2003. Petitioner No. 2 was also proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.9.2003 and resultantly, ex-parte order of eviction dated 24.8.2004 was passed by the Rent Controller, Gurgaon.

Against the aforesaid ex-parte order of eviction, the petitioners filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte orders dated 22.9.2003 and 31.10.2003. However, the said application was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division,), Gurgaon vide order dated 26.7.2010.

Against the aforesaid order, petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 7384 of 2010 which was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.11.2010 with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the aforesaid orders by filing an appeal in accordance with law.

Instead of challenging the aforesaid order within limitation, as per the permission granted in the civil revision, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order dated 24.8.2004 whereby they were ordered to be evicted ex-parte. The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.10.2011, holding that there were no sufficient reasons for condoning such a huge delay of more than seven years.

The instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the aforesaid orders of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority.

Counsel for the petitioners admitted that in execution of the order of eviction dated 24.8.2004, the respondents have taken possession of the premises in dispute. Once that is so, probably all the proceedings taken by the petitioners, thereafter, are nothing but abuse of the process of law. Admittedly, the petitioners who were firstly pursued their remedy against the ex-parte orders dated 22.9.2003 and 31.10.2003 before this Court in Civil Revision No. 7384 of 2010 and thereafter, in the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority against the order dated 24.8.2004, which culminated into the order of the Appellate Authority dated 18.10.2011, did not disclose the aforesaid fact of taking possession by the landlord and continued to proceed with the aforesaid proceedings. It was only when the respondent-landlord appeared before the Appellate Authority, the aforesaid fact of taking possession came on record. Thus, the petitioners knowingly concealed the aforesaid fact of taking the possession. No explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the petitioners to conceal the aforesaid vital facts. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is taking undue benefit of the judicial proceedings for malicious prosecution of the respondent-landlord, which cannot be allowed.

In these circumstances, this petition is dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. Let the aforesaid costs be deposited with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh within one month from today.