Bar Expected To Advise Parties Against Pursuing "Lumber Litigation", Save Judicial Time: Rajasthan High Court

Justice Sudesh Bansal, while dismissing the first appeal as it being devoid of merits, observed,

"There is nothing wrong to have a legitimate expectation from the learned Members of the Bar to convince such type of litigants not to pursue the unwarranted litigation before any court of law. If any litigation, with passage of time or due to prolonged life of the litigation have lost its merits, the parties should be advised not to pursue such lumber litigation unwarrantedly on merits, taking immense judicial time of courts for no good results. Prestigious and valuable time of judicial courts should be utilized for deciding bonafide and legitimate disputes instead of deciding superfluous litigation like present one."

Facts

Essentially, a premises was let out by original plaintiff Krishan Sharan Sharma to original tenant Ghasi Ram Yadav in July, 1967. Since the original tenant committed default in payment of rent and the original plaintiff landlord required the house for his own family hence a civil suit for eviction invoking the provisions of Section 13(1)(a) and (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was filed on 25-11-2000.

At the time of institution of suit for eviction, the original tenant passed away and hence the suit was filed against (i) Mahendra Yadav (younger son)-defendant no.1 and Uma Yadav (widow of elder son Ram Singh Yadav)-defendant no.2, who were stated to be in possession of the rented house.

During pendency of suit, the original plaintiff also passed away, hence his wife and son were allowed to continue proceedings of the suit for eviction.

The trial court after recording evidence of both parties and holding a full fledged trial held that the rented house is required to plaintiff landlord for residence of his own family and the need of plaintiff is bonafide and reasonable, hence, the suit for eviction was decreed vide judgment dated 17-8-2004.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-defendants-tenant preferred this first appeal under Section 96 CPC.

Court's Observations

The court observed that the persuasion of first appeal by appellant No.2 is unwarranted, rather it can be assumed that it is just to gain ulterior motive and is malafide. The court also observed that the persuasion of the first appeal is superfluous and can be termed as unscrupulous litigation.

The court noted that there seems no bonafide on the part of appellant No.2, what to say for protection of her right as tenant under the provisions of the Rent Act. The aim and object of the rent control legislation is intended to save harassment of tenant, but it does not deprive the landlord of their properties for good, added the court.

The court opined that after the death of appellant No.1 Mahendra Yadav, who died leaving behind no legal heir, continuation of first appeal at the behest of appellant No.2 is a sheer misuse of process of law. The court stated that present litigation at the behest of appellant No.2 can be termed as superfluous, unscrupulous and unwarranted litigation.

On the argument that the plaintiff arbitrarily claimed monthly rent as Rs.2,500/-, whereas the trial court has assessed the monthly rent as Rs.1000/- per month, and such that the suit could not have been decided by the trial court as it was not having pecuniary jurisdiction, the court observed,

"This court finds that firstly the trial court has the jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the suit and on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction, no such objection was raised by the defendant in the written statement. Secondly, as per valuation assessed by the plaintiff the suit was well within pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court. Thus, the argument raised by counsel for appellant defendant cannot be appreciated in the backdrop facts of the case, more particularly at the appellate stage."

The court said that the landlord is the best judge for his needs and neither the tenant nor the court can compel the landlord to compromise with his comfort. The court stated that it is open for the landlord to look for his comfort and need not make any sacrifice. The court observed that the plaintiff had no other house other than the rented house and the house that at Jaipur and the temple in Alwar may not be termed as alternative premises available to plaintiff. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff's house on rent was needed for the residence of his family, which is not been found to be malafide or with oblique motive, added the court.

In addition to this, the court also observed,

"As far as subsequent events of death of plaintiff and his wife are concerned, the need for the rented house for plaintiff's family includes for his son also. Hence, the need as existed on the date of filing the suit cannot be treated as extinguished by subsequent events. The defendant cannot be allowed to take advantage of slowness of legal process, more particularly, in the present case when in fact the appellant- defendant No.1 has passed away. And the appellant- defendant No.2 did not have possession of rented house, as discussed, hereinabove."

Case Title: Mahendra Yadav & Anr. v. Bhagwan Devi & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 157

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment