Sukhdev Aggarwal vs Shri A.K. Raghava and others

S.S. Sodhi, J.—Expunction of remarks reflecting adversely upon the conduct and integrity of Mr. Sukhdev Aggarwal Advocate of Hissar is the relief sought here. The offending remarks being contained in the order of the Rent Controller Mr. A.K. Raghava of September 11, 1985, whereby he dismissed the application filed by the landlord for permission to examine himself as witness. The Rent Controller had, by his earlier order of October 3, 1985, closed the evidence of the landlord. The matter pertained to the fixation of fair rent under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, at the instance of the landlord. The Petitioner Mr. Sukhdev Aggarwal, Advocate, being the counsel for the tenant.

A reference to the record would show that August 2, 1985 was the date fixed for the recording of the statement of landlord. On that day, the order passed in the first instance was:-

Present: Applicant in person Shri S.D. Aggarwal, Advocate for the Respondent. The applicant is present, but learned Counsel for the applicant is not available. Case be called after sometime for the evidence of the applicant

Sd/- R.C. 2.8.1985

The later order whereby the evidence of the landlord was closed, reads as under:-

Present; Counsel for the parties: Case called but learned Counsel for the applicant states that he is busy in another Court. Further it is not a ground to adjourn the case merely on the ground that the counsel is busy in some other Court. Today was the last opportunity for recording the statement of applicant. The applicant has already been granted seven opportunities and the proceedings are being held up for the evidence of the applicant as the same has not been closed so far. As such the evidence of applicant is hereby closed, by the orders of the court. Now to come upon 3.9.1985 for R. Ws. P.F., DM be filed within two days failing which at his own responsibility.

Sd/- R.C. 2.8.85.

On August 5, 1985, counsel for the landlord filed an application praying that the landlord may be permitted to examine himself as his-own witness as it was stated that his evidence had been closed for no fault of his. It was averred in this behalf that when the case was called at about 2-40 P.M., the counsel for the landlord attended the court, but the counsel for the tenant was not present. At 3-30 P.M., there-was a farewell party for Mr. B.R. Vohra, Additional District & Sessions Judge and Mr. Darshan Singh, Sub-Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate. Hissar, who had been transferred. The case was, therefore, ordered to be taken up after that party. Counsel for both the parties crime to the court at 3.45 P.M. and remained there till 4.15 P.M., but the Presiding Officer of the court remained busy in his retiring room. Counsel then left the court at 4.15 P.M. assuming that the case would be adjourned to some other date. This case was, however, thereafter, taken up at 4.20 P.M. and the evidence of the landlord was ordered to be closed. It was also stated that the landlord himself was present when the case was called at 4.20 P.M., but his statement was not recorded nor was he asked to give any statement in the court.

In the reply filed on behalf of the tenant, through his counsel,, the present Petitioner, the averments made in the application of the landlord were accepted as correct with the specific statement, "It is correct that this Hon''ble court was busy in the lettering room and the counsel for the Respondent was also present. The Respondent was present at 4-20 P.M. when the case was called."

It was while declining the application of the landlord of August 5, 1985 that the Rent Controller, after observing that the present Petitioner had not seriously opposed the landlord''s application proceeded to record remarks implying that Petitioner, as counsel for the tenant, had colluded with the opposite party, that is the landlord. What was mentioned in the said order of the Rent Controller of September, 11, 1985, being:

(i)It seems that he has colluded with the Petitioner and that is why he has admitted the wrong facts pleaded by the Petitioner in his own application" ;

(ii) "-in collusion with the Respondent by filling wrong application which is absolutely inconsistent" ;

(iii) "-despite the fact that the Respondent and his counsel have colluded with the Petitioner.

The crucial point here is the veracity of the landlord''s plea that his counsel along with the Petitioner went to the court of the Rent Controller at 3.45 P. M. stayed there till 4.15 P. M. while the Rent Controller was busy in his retiring room and that it was after that they had left the court-room ; that the Rent Controller came to the court-room at 4-20 P. M. and then passed the order closing the evidence of the landlord. This version of the landlord was neither doubted nor repelled by the Rent Controller, in his order of September 11, 1985. This being so, the Petitioner by his reply to the landlord''s application admitting the correctness of the fact set out therein, did not, by any means, lay himself open to the imputations as contained in the offending remarks. In other words, these remarks, were wholly unwarranted and uncalled for and cannot, therefore, be sustained and must accordingly be expunged. It is consequently so ordered. This petition is thus accepted.