"Shockingly Brazen": Supreme Court Pulls Up Litigant For Dropping Union Minister's Name During Argument

In a judgment delivered on Thursday (April 7), the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the conduct of a litigant by which he dropped the names of persons holding high offices, including a Union Minister, during the hearing.A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh was hearing an appeal arising out of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Delhi High Court had allowed a revision petition filed by the tenant, granting him leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the landlord. Aggreived with that, the landlord approached the Supreme Court.Before the Supreme Court, the teanant, who appeared as party- in- person, took the names of high profile persons. Taking strong objection to this approach of the litigant, the bench stated in its order :"We are constrained to note that the respondent continued to drop the names of persons holding high offices even before us. He proudly proclaimed during his argument that the proceedings under the Enemy Property Act, as amended, were initiated only at his instance on his personally meeting with an Hon'ble Union Minister".The bench added that before the Rent Controller also, the litigant had adopted the same practice. The rent controller had strongly indicted the litigant for dropping the names of not only a District Judge but also a high court judge, "certainly not germane to the case"."...the Court(Rent Controller) made certain observations in addition to the order on merits, giving its indictment on the conduct of the respondent, who dropped the names of not only a District Judge but also a High Court Judge, certainly not germane to the case", the Supreme Court observed about the approach taken by the Rent Controller.The Top Court said that it was adopting the same approach as the rent controller as regards the "shockingly brazen" conduct of the litigant."We can only adopt the process undertaken by the rent controller by not letting the said statement come in the way of deciding the matter on merits, despite it being unconscionable and shockingly brazen," it said.The tenant had disputed the title of the landlord by saying that the original owners of the properties were in Pakistan and the property belonged to the Central Government under the the Enemy Property Act, 1968.The Supreme Court found fault with the High Court for exceeding its revisional powers to allow the tenant's plea seeking leave to defend. Separate report about the legal issue in the judgment may be read here -Leave To Defend U/Sec 25B Delhi Rent Control Act Cannot Be Granted To Tenant On Mere Asking : Supreme CourtCase detailsAbid Ul Islam vs Inder Sain Dua | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353 | CA 9444 OF 2016 | 7 April 2022

"Shockingly Brazen": Supreme Court Pulls Up Litigant For Dropping Union Minister's Name During Argument

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags