# MOHAN SINGH .• v. LATE AMAR SINGH THROUGH THE LRS

- **Citation:** [1998] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 252
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1998-09-01
- **Bench:** Dr. A.S. Anand, M. Srinivasan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mohan-singh-v-late-amar-singh-through-the-lrs-16282
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

Rent Control and Eviction :
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 : Section 21.
Tenancy-For a limited period-Pennission f 01~Tenant raised objection after expi1y of limited pe1iod of tenancy that landlord obtained pemiission by fraud and misrepresentation-Held : Such objection should be raised
before the Rent Colllroller/Additional Rent Controller before expiry of limited
pe1iod of tenancy and not after its expiiy-171e 'tenant should raise such an
D objection immediately after he comes to know of the landlord's fraud and
misrepresentation-171ere must be exceptional circumstances for allowing the
tenant to raise such a plea after expby of the limited pe1iod of tenancy-Burden to prove fraud, collusion, misrepresentation etc. lies on the person alleging
it-Jn the facts of the case, no exceptional circumstances made out by the
E tenant to enable him to challenge the order of Additional Rent Controller
granting pennission for limited pe1iod of tenancy.
Tenancy-For a limited pe1iod-Pennission f01~Landlord filed application for recove1y of possession after expi1y of limited period of tenancy-Tenant raised objection at that stage that landlord obtained pe1111ission
F for limited pe1iod of tenancy by fraud and misrepresentation-Additional
Rent Controller (ARC) granted pennission to the tenant to lead evidence in
suppo1t of his objection and allowed the landlord to repudiate such evidence
and stayed dispossession of Jhe tenant till the decision on the objection,--Held: Order of ARC is interlocuto1y in nature which would not prevellt
G the landlord from contending before the Appellate Tribunal that the tenallt
was not entitled to raise objection to the validity of the pem1ission after the
expiry of limited period of tenancy.
Sections 21 and 38-Tenancy-For a limited period-Pemiission
for--Granted initially for two years-After its expiiy landlord and tenant filed
H a joint application for a ftuther limited period-Additional Rent Controller
252
-
MOHAN SINGH v. LATE AMAR SINGH
253
.
(A.R. C.) granted the second pennission after recording statements of landlord
and tenant-Landlord filed application under S.21 after expiry of limited
peliod of tenancy for recove1y of possession-Tenant raised objectio11 that the
second pe11nissio11 was obtained by la11dlord by fraud and misreprese11tation-ARC held that pem1issio11 was without julisdiction and· could not be
enf orced--!11 the appeal. by landlord under S. 38 before Re11t Control Tlibunal
tenant raised a new plea in his application for additio11al evidence that on
the date of grant of the second pennission on the basis of his alleged
statement, he had left the cowwy for Gennany which showed that the
pem1issio11 for limited tenancy was obtained by lai'ldlord by fraud and misrepresentation-Held: Burden is on the tenant to prove he· was not present in
co wt on the day when the second pennission was granted but tenant failed
to discharge this burden-Fwther, rejoindei"filed by the tena11t before the ARC
is tampered with at a later point of time and in all probability when the matter
was pe11ding before the Appeilate Tlibzmal i11 order to support the new plea
raised by the te11ant for the first time-Moreover, records of ARC and Tlibunal
are tampered with by the tenant; visa alleged to have bee11 is.sued by Gennan
Embassy to the te11ant and immigration stamp found thereon is not genui11e;
tenant also made an attempt to hoodwink the Supreme Cowt and succeeded
in getting special leave and order staying dispossession---Registrar of Supreme
Court directed to file a complaint before the appropliate cowt and set the
e1iminal law in motion against the tenant-Evidet1ce Act, 1872, Ss. 101 and
102-Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 192 and 196.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
A
B
c
D
E
Eviction suit-Rejoinder-Filing
of-By
tenant-Additional
evidence-Taking of-Tampe1ing of records--Prevention of-Held: Directio11
F
with regard to proceedings under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 a11d regular
civil cowts issued-Delhi High Court should frame

## Text

_Characters 0–39,998 of 68,372. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39998 for what follows._

A
B
c
MOHAN SINGH
.•
v.
LATE AMAR SINGH THROUGH THE LRS.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.]
Rent Control and Eviction :
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 : Section 21.
Tenancy-For a limited period-Pennission f 01~Tenant raised objection after expi1y of limited pe1iod of tenancy that landlord obtained pemiission by fraud and misrepresentation-Held : Such objection should be raised
before the Rent Colllroller/Additional Rent Controller before expiry of limited
pe1iod of tenancy and not after its expiiy-171e 'tenant should raise such an
D objection immediately after he comes to know of the landlord's fraud and
misrepresentation-171ere must be exceptional circumstances for allowing the
tenant to raise such a plea after expby of the limited pe1iod of tenancy-Burden to prove fraud, collusion, misrepresentation etc. lies on the person alleging
it-Jn the facts of the case, no exceptional circumstances made out by the
E tenant to enable him to challenge the order of Additional Rent Controller
granting pennission for limited pe1iod of tenancy.
Tenancy-For a limited pe1iod-Pennission f01~Landlord filed application for recove1y of possession after expi1y of limited period of tenancy-Tenant raised objection at that stage that landlord obtained pe1111ission
F for limited pe1iod of tenancy by fraud and misrepresentation-Additional
Rent Controller (ARC) granted pennission to the tenant to lead evidence in
suppo1t of his objection and allowed the landlord to repudiate such evidence
and stayed dispossession of Jhe tenant till the decision on the objection,--Held: Order of ARC is interlocuto1y in nature which would not prevellt
G the landlord from contending before the Appellate Tribunal that the tenallt
was not entitled to raise objection to the validity of the pem1ission after the
expiry of limited period of tenancy.
Sections 21 and 38-Tenancy-For a limited period-Pemiission
for--Granted initially for two years-After its expiiy landlord and tenant filed
H a joint application for a ftuther limited period-Additional Rent Controller
252
-
MOHAN SINGH v. LATE AMAR SINGH
253
.
(A.R. C.) granted the second pennission after recording statements of landlord
and tenant-Landlord filed application under S.21 after expiry of limited
peliod of tenancy for recove1y of possession-Tenant raised objectio11 that the
second pe11nissio11 was obtained by la11dlord by fraud and misreprese11tation-ARC held that pem1issio11 was without julisdiction and· could not be
enf orced--!11 the appeal. by landlord under S. 38 before Re11t Control Tlibunal
tenant raised a new plea in his application for additio11al evidence that on
the date of grant of the second pennission on the basis of his alleged
statement, he had left the cowwy for Gennany which showed that the
pem1issio11 for limited tenancy was obtained by lai'ldlord by fraud and misrepresentation-Held: Burden is on the tenant to prove he· was not present in
co wt on the day when the second pennission was granted but tenant failed
to discharge this burden-Fwther, rejoindei"filed by the tena11t before the ARC
is tampered with at a later point of time and in all probability when the matter
was pe11ding before the Appeilate Tlibzmal i11 order to support the new plea
raised by the te11ant for the first time-Moreover, records of ARC and Tlibunal
are tampered with by the tenant; visa alleged to have bee11 is.sued by Gennan
Embassy to the te11ant and immigration stamp found thereon is not genui11e;
tenant also made an attempt to hoodwink the Supreme Cowt and succeeded
in getting special leave and order staying dispossession---Registrar of Supreme
Court directed to file a complaint before the appropliate cowt and set the
e1iminal law in motion against the tenant-Evidet1ce Act, 1872, Ss. 101 and
102-Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 192 and 196.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
A
B
c
D
E
Eviction suit-Rejoinder-Filing
of-By
tenant-Additional
evidence-Taking of-Tampe1ing of records--Prevention of-Held: Directio11
F
with regard to proceedings under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 a11d regular
civil cowts issued-Delhi High Court should frame appropliate mies of
practice to be obse1Ved by all subordinate cowts--Provision of the statute,
~ules a11d CPC should be stlictly complied with-Procedure for filing ~f
rejoinder and application for additional evidence by a party laid down-Practice. and Procedure..
G
The appellant-tenant was granted perm1ss10n for tenancy for a
limited period of two years in respect of the premises belonging to the
respondent-landlord under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Before expiry of this limited period of tenancy a joint application by the H
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A appellant and the respondent was filed before the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) for permission to create a limited tenancy for a further
period of two years. After recording the statements of the appellant and
respondent permission was granted for a further limited period of three
years.
B
On the expiry of the .second limited period the appellant did not
vacate the premises and, therefore, the respondent filed an application for
recovery of possession. The appellant raised objection at that stage that
the second permission for the limited period was obtained by fraud and
misrepresentation by the respondent. The ARC granted permission to the
C appellant to lead evidence in support of his objection and allowed the
landlord to repudiate the evidence led by the appellant and stayed dispossession of the appellant till the decision on the objection. The ARC held
that the second permission granted under Section 21 of the Act was
without jurisdiction and could not be enforced. Accordingly, the objections
D
of the appellant were upheld and the respondent's application for recovery
of possession was dismissed.
Being aggrieved the respondent filed an appeal under Section 38 of
the Act before the Rent Control Tribunal where the appellant raised a new
plea in his application for additional evidence that on the date of grant of
E the second permission on the basis of his alleged statement, he had left
the country for Germany which showed that the second permission for
limited tenancy was obtained by the respondent hy manipulation and fraud
played on "1e court. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that
the appellant did not raise the plea about his absence before the ARC. The
appellant's revision before the High Court was dismissed. Hence this
F appeal:
On behalf or the appellant it was contended that the appellant was
not present in court when the second permission was granted as he had
left the country for Germany; and that the order passed by the ARC
G granting permission to the appellant to lead evidence was final and it was
not open to the respondent to conte>id before the Tribunal that the
respondent was not entitled to raise objecL 'n to the validity of the second
permission after expiry of the limited period of tenancy.
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the rejoinder filed
H by the appellant before the ARC was tampered with at a later point of time.
-
MOHAN SINGH v. LATE AMAR SINGH
255
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
A
HELD : 1.1. The objection t!1 the validity of the permission for
limited tenancy should be made immediately on the tenant becoming aware
of the fraud; collusion etc. and that the tenant may be permitted to raise
objections after the expiry of lease in exceptional circumstances only. Such
an objection cannot normally be allowed to be raised when the landlord B
makes an application for recovery of possession after expiry of the limited
period of tenancy. Further, the burden to prove fraud, collusion, misrepresentaion etc. is on the person alleging it. In the instant case, no
exceptional circumstances have been made out to enable the tenant to
challenge the order of the Additional Rent Controller granting permission C
for tenancy for a limited period. [276-B-E]
Pankaj Bltargava v. Mo/tinder Nath, [1991) 1 SCC 556 andJ.R. Vohra
v. Indian &port House Pvt. Ltd., [1985) 1 SCC 712, followed.
Smt. Dhanwanti v. D.D. Gupta, [1986) 3 SCC, relied on.
Shrisltt Dhawa11 v. Shaw Bros., [1992) 1 SCC 534, held inapplicable.
Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Chaudhry, AIR (1957) SC 540,
referred to.
1.2. The order passed by the Additional Rent Controller granting
permission to the tenant to lead evidence on the objection raised by him
was of an interlocutory nature, which would not prevent the landlord from
contending before the Appellate Tribunal that the tenant was not entitled
to raise objections to the validity of the permission after the expiry of the
tenancy. [276-E-F]
Pankaj Bhargava v. Mo/tinder Nath, [1991) 1 SCC 556 and J.R. Vohra
v. Indian Export House Pvt. Ltd., [1985) 1 SCC 712, followed.
D
E
F
2. The burden is on the tenant to prove his absence from the court on
the day of grant of the second permission for limited tenancy but the tenant G
failed to discharge his burden. Further, rejoinder filed by the tenant before
the Additional Rent Controller had been tampered with at a later point of
time and in all probability when the matter was pending before the Appeliate Tribunal in order to support a new plea raised for the first time by the
tenant. Moreover, the records of the Additional Rent Controller and the H
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A Rent Tribunal have been tampered with. The visa alleged to have been
issued by the German Embassy to the tenant and the Immigration Stamp
found thereon are not genuine. The tenant has also made an attempt to
hoodwink this Court and succeed in his appeal. He was successful in getting
the Special Leave and an order staying dispossession. The Registrar of this
Court is directed to file a complaint before the appropriate court and set
B the criminal law in motion against the tenant. (276-H; 277-C]
3.1. There is no procedure regarding filing of rejoinder by a· party.
Therefore, a rule should be made that papers intended to be filed in Court
in matters in which the other side has entered appearance should be served
C . on the opposite party under acknowledgement endorsed thereon. A rule
should also be made that any paper served on the counsel for the opposite
side must bear the endorsement that it is a true copy of the original filed
in the Court and it should be signed by the counsel or the party. The
Presiding Officer should take care to see that any paper filed in Court
D
bears the date-stamp clearly on every page aud he should put his initials
and date on each page clearly. Such a procedure would ensure to some
extent that papers filed in Court are not tampered with.
[277-F; 277-H; 278-C]
3.2. Regarding filing of application for additional evidence by a party
it would have been better if the application had been given a separate
E number and an order had been passed thereon separately. But that is not
a matter of grave concern. It is absolutely necessary that every application
for permission to file additional evidence should contain a list of documents giving full particulars thereof as date, parties thereto and description. Apart from that each document should also bear a certificate of
F endorsement made by the counsel or the party that the said document was
the one referred to in the affidavit or application of the party. The
application must also specily the number of pages of each document filed
therewith. Whenever, such applications are filed in pending matters, the
copies thereof and copies of the documents sought to be filed as additional
G evidence should be served on the other side after being duly certified as
true copies by the applicant or his counsel. Appropriate rules have to be
framed in this regard also. (278-E-H]
4.1. In addition to the above matters there are se' ;ral other matters
also relating to practice and procedure which require proper attention. In
H so far as the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is concerned, Section 56 enables
:
MOHANSINGHv. LATEAMARSINGH[SRINIVASAN,J.]
257
the Central Government to make Rules. Rule 23 of the Rules framed under A
the Act provides that the Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal are as
far as possible be guided by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. It is absolutely necessary for the Controller and the Rent
Control Tribunal to see that the provisions of the Statute, Rules and the
Code of Civil Procedure are strictly complied with in all the proceedings
before them. [279-A-B]
4.2. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that even for the
civil courts in the Union Territory of Delhi, no rules of practice have been
framed by the High. Court. It is a sad state of affairs that the High Court
B
of Delhi has not given its thought in this regard. It is high time that the C
High Court framed appropriate rules of practice to be observed by all the
courts in the territory subordinate to it. The Registry is direded to send
copies of this judgment to the concerned department of the Central
Government as well as the High Court of Delhi so that appropriate rules
" may be made by them respectively with regard to the proceedings under
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the proceedings in the regular civil D
courts. The High Court is requested to give its immediate attention to this
matter and also cause periodic inspection of the courts subordinate to it
and issue such circulars as may be necessary in order to plug the loopholes
then and there. [279-C-E]
,
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14918 of
~
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.96 of the Delhi High
Court in C.M.(M) P. No. 438 of 1996.
Aseem Mehrotra and Maninder Singh for the Appellant.
A. Mariarputham & Mrs. Aruna Mathur for M/s. Arputham Aruna
& Co. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SRINIVASAN, J. The appellant became a tenant under Amar Singh
F
G
the grand-father of the present respondents with respect to premises
situated in E-222, East of Kailash on 29.6.1979. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as tenant and landlord herein. A
joint application was filed before the Additional Rent Controller (for short H
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. l S.C.R.
A A.R.C.), Delhi under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
hereinafter referred to as the Act for permission to let the premises.for a J
limited period of two years. The same was granted on 3.7.1979. On
29.6.1981 another joint application under Section 21 was filed for permission to create a limited tenancy for two years. On 30.6.1981 statements of
,-,
B landlord and tenant were recorded by the A.R.C .. Permission was granted
for a period of three years. On the expiry of that period the tenant did not
vacate the premises and the landlord filed an application for execution.
Notice was issued to the tenant returnable on 25.1.85. As he was not served,
fresh notice was ordered for 19.4.85. On that day, the tenant did not appear
'
though served on 24.3.85. The court directed issue of warrant but in the
C afternoon, the tenant appeared before court and filed his objections. An
application was also moved for cancellation of warrant of posses~ion. By
order dated 29.4.85 the A.R.C recorded that there was no justification for
issuance of ex-parte stay to stop the execution of warrant of possession and
ordered notice of the application to the counsel for the landlord. The
D warrant could not be executed and when the matter came up before court
on 31.5.85 the landlord was given time to file reply to the objections filed
by the tenant till 2.8.85. On the latter date, the landlord filed his reply, and
the appellant was given time to file re-joinder till 6.9.1985. No re-joinder
~was filed on 6.9.1985 and the case was fixed for hearing arguments on the
objections and posted to 11.10.1985. On that date, the tenant filed replicaE tion and served a copy thereof on the landlord's counsel. Arguments were
heard and the matter was posted for orders to 18.10.1985. The A.R.C.
passed an order on 18.10.1985 that the objections filed by the tenant could
not be dismissed without recording the evidence and granted permission
to the tenant to lead evidence in support of the objection. The landlord
F was permitted to repudiate the evidence led by the tenant. The dis-possession of the tenant was stayed till the decision on the objections.
2. In the objections filed by the tenant it was contended that the grant
of permission under Section 21 of the Act on 30.6.1981 was wholly vitiated
by fraud and misrepresention and it was contrary to the provisions of
G Section 21 of the Act. It was alleged that the Landlord had misled and
misrepresented the relevant facts at the time of grant of permission that
his family will shift from Amritsar where he was residing but his family was
never living at Amritsar and the premises in question were not required by
the landlord for his residence after the expiry of three years as alleged by
H him. It was also stated that the landlord owned a property bearing number
MOHANSINGHv. LATE AMAR SINGH [SRINIVASAN,J.]
259
E-3, East of Kailash, where he and his family were living throughout. It was A
further stated that the tenant was in occupation of premises since 29.6.1979
and had continued and remained in possession of the premises in question
and he had never vacated the same since that date. It was alleged that the
landlord wanted to enhance the rent to Rs.3000 per mensem which the
tenant had refused to agree and therefore the petition for execution was
filed. It was also stated that the order under Section 21 was liable to be set
aside and quashed and no warrant of possession in respect of the premises
in question could be issued against the tenant. No plea was raised then by
him that he was not present in the court of A.R.C. on 30.6.81.
3. In the reply filed by the landlord, it was contended that the tenant
being a signatory to the permission granted by the A.R.C. and a party to
the proceedings could not challenge the permission so granted by the
Court. The allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were denied. It was
also stated that the landlord was not living in E-3, East of Kailash as alleged
by the tenant.
4. In the re-joinder filed by the tenant on 11.10.85 though it was dated
2.9.85 the earlier allegations were repeated. According to the tenant, a plea
was raised that he did net appear before the A.R.C. on 30.6.81. and was
not a party to the proceedings. According to the landlord such a plea was
B
c
D
not raised in the said rejoinder. Evidence was recorded in the proceedings. E
The matter was being adjourned periodically for various reasons and
ultimately an order was passed by A.R.C. on 22.10.94 only. In that order
there was no specific reference to the contents of the rejoinder filed by the
tenant. It was found by the A.R.C that as there was no dispute that the
premises were not vacant and available for letting out when the second
F
permission was taken, the Court had no jurisdiction to grant permission
under Section 21 of the Act. It was held that a fraud was played on the
Court concealing the facturn of tenant being in possession of the premises
and the permission was obtained on such concealment. Consequently the
A.R.C. held that the permission granted under Section ·21 of the Act was
without jurisdiction and could not be enforced. Accordingly, the objections G
of the tenant were upheld and the landlord's application for execution was
dismissed.
5. An appeal was filed by the landlord under section 38 of the Act
before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The counsel for the landlord H
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A addressed his arguments on 16.2.95 and the matter was posted to 22.5.95
for the arguments of the counsel for the tenant. From then onwards, the
matter was being adjourned from time to time and on several occasions at
the request of the counsel for the tenant. On 18.12.95 the arguments were
heard and concluded. On that day, an application was moved on behalf of
B the tenant for permission to file additional evidence. The counsel for the
landlord represented that he did not want to file any reply but advanced
his arguments orally on the application also. The matter was posted to
16.1.96 for orders but the case was being adjourned repeatedly and ultimately the order was passed on 21.9 .96. The Tribunal allowed th,e appeal
and set aside the order of the A.R.C. The Tribunal directed the landlord
C to approach the Trial Court for issuance of warrant of possession in
accordance with law.
6. In the application for additional evidence filed before the Tribunal
it was stated by the tenant that on 29 .6.81 he was busy in Embassys for
D obtaining visas and on 30.6.81 he left the country and purchased the tickets
in Germany for his onward journey and that the photo copies of the
passport and the tickets were enclosed to prove that the alleged limited
tenancy under section 21 of the Act was obtained on 30.6.81 from the court
by the landlord on manipulation and fraud played on the Court. Referring
to the said application for additional evidence, the Tribunal observed in its
E order as follows: ·
F
G
H
"During the pendency of the appeal an application was made on
behalf of the respondent praying for permission to file additional
evidence with regard to permission under section 21 of the Act
having been obtained by the appellant in absence of the respondent
as according to him on 29.6.1981, ·the respondent was busy in
Embassys for obtaining visas and on 30.6.1981 he left the country
and purchased a ticket for Germany for his onward journey which
would be evident from the entries in his Passport and Visa. That
may or may not be so but the present application appears to be
quite vague and in any case it appears to me an afterthought device
on the part of the respondent inasmuch as no such plea about his
absence before the Rent Controller was taken up by him in the
objection filed in response to the execution application. In any
case, this evidence would be wholly irrelevant in view of my finding
that the respondent was not within his rights to maintain the
MOHAN SINGH v. LATE AMAR SINGH [SRINIVASAN, J.]
261
objection petition after expiry of the period of limited tenancy. The A
application has, therefore, no merit and is accordingly dismissed''.
7. The Tribunal found that the A.R.C. erred in entertaining the
objections of the tenant at the late stage of execution and allowing the same
in view of the settled position. of law that such objections could not be
raised after the expiry of the period of tenancy. There was also an objection
by the tenant that the landlord's appeal was not maintainable in view of
the amended provision in section 38 of the Act which permitted appeals
only on questions of law. That objection was overruled by the Tribunal on
the ground that the petition for execution was filed long before the said
amendment was introduced and the landlord's vested right of appeal could
not be affected by the subsequent amendment of 1988. The Tribunal relied
upon the judgment of this court in Gwikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah
Chaudhry and _Others, AIR (1957) S.C. 540. On the above findings the
Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the landlord.
8. The tenant filed a revision petition under Article 227 of the
R
c
D
Constitution before the High Court. The only contention urged before the
High Court was that the order dated 18.10.85 passed by the A.R.C.
permitting the appellant to raise objections to the execution had become
final and it was not open thereafter to the landlord to challenge before the
appellate court the maintainability of the objection on the ground that it E
,,,., was filed after the expiry of the period of tenancy. That question was
answered against the tenant by the High Court on the ground that the
entire matter was at large before the Appellate Tribunal and it was
competent to decide the entire controversy. Consequently, the revision
petition filed by the tenant was dismissed.
p
9. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant prayed for Special Leave which was
granted. Thus this appeal has come on file. The most i~portant plea raised
by the tenant in this appeal is that he was not in Court on 3Q.6.81 as he
had left the country in the intervening night of 29th and 30th June, 1981
for Germany from where he was to travel to two other European countries. G
According to him the signature on his alleged statement was not his. When
leave was granted, notice was taken on behalf of the landlord and time was
granted to file objections to the application for stay. Alongwith the counter
affidavit to the. application for stay, the landlord filed an application I.A. 3
of 1997 for revocation of the Special Leave granted. There was also an H
262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 1 S.C:.R.
A application to bring the respondents on record as the legal representatives
of the deceased landlord Amar Singh. It was numbered as I.A. 4 of 1997.
The lat~er application was ordered on 10.3.97. In I.A. 3of1997 it was stated
that several false and misleading averments were made in the petition for
Special Leave including the plea that the appellant was not present in India
B on 30.6.81 and that he did.not appear before the A.R.C.
10. On 8.11.97 an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the
landlord in which it was stated that a copy of the rejoinder filed by the
tenant as Annexure to the Special Leave Petition and found in the paper
book (Pages 67 of 73 as at present) was not a correct copy and there was
C a deliberate tampering of the same. Alongwith that affidavit a copy of
rejoinder said to have been served on the counsel for the landlord in the
Trial Court was filed as annexure R-1. It was also stated in that affidavit
that a document had been interpolated among the records of the Tribunal
as Page 79-A th~ugh it was not produced before the Tribunal and a copy
D of the. said document had been filed by the appellant in this court and
found at Page 167 of the Paper Book at present.
n The matter came before the Court on 29.1.98. An order was
passed rt.erring to the copy of the rejoinder produced as Annexure R-1
by the landlord and an opportunity was given to the tenant to file a detailed
E affidavit in reply to I.A. 3 of 1997 as well as to the additional affidavit. A
direction was issued to the Registry to call for the records from the Court
of A.R.C Delhi. Then the matter came up again on 27.3.98. The relevant
passport of the tenant was shown to the court but taken away immediately
as xerox copies had been filed. The Court passed an order that the appeal
F would itself be finally disposed and posted the same lo August 1998. On
12.8.98 the appeal was heard in part and adjourned to 13.8.98 for further
hearing. The tenant was directed to produce the passport containing
various visa entries. A direction was also issued to the Rent Control
Tribunal to send records of the case R.C.A. No.749 of 1994 through a
special messenger and the matter was posted for 13.8.98 for further hearG ing. On that day, the arguments were concluded and judgment was
reserved as the counsel for the appellant prayed for some more time to
produce the passport. The matter was posted to 20.8.98 in Chamber at l.30
p.m. The counsel for the parties were permitted to supplement the arguments by submitting two page written submissions. On 20.8.98 counsel for
H the tenant submitted that the passport was not traceable by his client. In
MOHAN SINGH v. LATE AMAR SINGH [SRINIVASAN, J.]
263
the written submissions filed on behalf of the tenant it was stated that A
inspite of the best efforts the old passports which were joined together
were not traceable and the photo copies thereof filed earlier may be
treated as court record.
12. Learned counsel for the tenant has put forward the following
contentions:
(a) The order of the A.R.C. dated 30.6.81 in null and void as it was
procured by the landlord by playing fraud on court.
(b) The Rent Tribunal was absolutely wrong in holding that the
tenant's objections were belated and not entertainable over looking the fact
that such a plea was not available to the landlord since it had been
negatived by the A.R.C. in his order passed on 18.10.85 which became final
as it was not challenged by the landlord.
B
c
13. The first contention has two limbs. One is that the tenant had left D
India around 2.00 a.m. on 30th June, 1981 for Germany and he did not
appear before the A.RC. and give any statement. The signature at the
bottom of the statement was not his and it was forged. Learned counsel
invited us to compare that signature with the admitted signatures of the
tenant. According to him the disparity is so glaring that anybody would say
that the disputed signature is not that of the tenant. He pointed out that E
even before the Tribunal, his client sought for examination of a handwriting
expert in order to ascertain the authenticity of the signature but the
Tribunal did not consider the application.
14. We have already pointed out that the tenant did not in his
objections to the execution filed on 19.4.85 raise the plea that he was not
present in the Court of A.R.C. on 30.6.81. Nor did he contend that the
signature in the statement recorded by the A.RC. was not his. An explanation for this omission has been attempted in the S.L.P. In para 5 thereof it
is averred as follows:-
"The petitioner was served on 19.4.85 and immediately on the same
date at 2.30 P .M. he got filed the objection petition in haste and
at the time he was not aware of the details of his visit during the
year 1981". The averment that he was served on 19.4.85 is false as
F
G
he was served on 24.3.85 (vide A.R.C's order dated 29.4.85).
Further, the explanation is hardly satisfactory. The tenant claims H
264
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
to be having business connections in several countries and is
undoubtedly worldly wise. If he was not party to the order, he
would have put forward the plea in the forefront. The failure to
raise the plea in the earliest opportunity is a definite pointer against
the genuineness of the version.
B
15. Assuming for a moment that his explanation is acceptable, did he
raise the plea in the second opportunity which he got when he filed a
rejoinder on 11.10.85? Our answer to this question is undoubtedly in the
negative and we proceed to give our reasons immediately. The rejoinder
bears the date 2.9.85. We had earlier set out the chronology where from it
C will be seen that the A.R.C posted the matter to 6.9.85 for filing rejoinder.
If the rejoinder was ready on 2.9.85 there was no reason why it was not
filed on 6.9.85. The A.R.C. posted the matter for arguments on 11.10.85 on
which date the rejoinder was filed in Court and obviously it was served on
the counsel for the landlord only at that time in Court. It is claimed by the
D tenant that in Para V thereof the following plea was raised.
"The respondent was inducted as a tenant under the permission
granted in Misc. Petition No. 304 of 1979 executed between the parties and
the respondent has not appeared before the Additional Rent Controller .
and is not a party to the limited period of tenancy created under Section
E 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act on 30.6.81".
According to learned counsel for the landlord the above sentence
was differently worded in the rejoinder originally when it was filed in Court
as could be ~een from the copy of the rejoinder served on his counter -
F part before the A.R.C. The relevant sentence in para V in the said copy
reads as follows:
G
"The respondent was inducted as a tenant under the permission
granted in Misc. Petition No. 304 of 1979 executed between the
parties and the respondent has continued in possession of the
premises even after the expiry ·of the limited period of tenancy
created under Section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act".
The portion "not appeared before the Additional Rent Controller and
is not a party to" is found in the former while the latter contains the words
H "colllinued in possession of the premises even after the expiry of" Further the
-
MOHAN SINGH v. LATE AMAR SINGH [SRINIVASAN, J.]
265
portion "on 30.6.81" is also not found in the latter.
16. A mere look at the original record shows even to the naked eye
that the aforesaid portion was a later interpolation after erasing the matter
which was already typed. It is also clear that the last portion "on 30.6.81,
had also been typed much later and it was not there originally. It is quite
evident that the rejoinder filed in Court had been tampered with by the
tenant at a later point of time in order to enable him to raise a plea that
he wa"s not present in Court on 30.6.81. The sentence as it is found in the
copy of the rejoinder served on the counsel for the landlord in open court
0n 11.10.85 is quite in accord with syntax and the context. The sentence
begins with a reference to what happened in 1979. The statement that he
continued in possession even after that tenancy expired is in natural
sequence. There was no occasion in that sentence to refer to the absence
of the tenant from Court on 30.6.81. The sentence in the original record as
it reads now is very clumsy and unnatural. Obviously the entire sentence
A
B
c
as it is found in the landlord's copy was intended to be and is a reiteration D ·
of the statement made in para 5 of the objections filed on 19.4.85 that "the
respondent/objector is in occupation and possession of the premises since
29.6.1979 and has continued and remained in possession of the premises
in question".
17. If really the tenant had raised the plea that he was not present in
Court in 30.6.81 and his signature had been forged, it would not have been
done in this insignificant manner in a portion of a sentence which may
easily go unnoticed. On the other hand such a plea would have been put
forth prominently in the fore front of the rejoinder and the tenant's
advocate would have lost no time to bring it to the notice of the Court. The
order of the A.R.C. dated 18.10.85 does not indicate the raising of such a
plea.
18. A more important circumstance is that there was no whisper by
E
F
the tenant in his deposition rendered as late as on 10.10.86. At that time, G
the petitioner was not in any haste or hurry. By then, he had all the time
in the world to gather all the details of the tours undertook by him in 198:
and stated them in his evidence. Nothing prevented him from stating on
oath that he was not in India at the relevant time and no statement was
made by him before the A.R.C. on 30.6.81. Far from saying so, the tenant H
266
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A admitted his presence in court on 30.6.81 in the following words in his
deposition:
B
"When the second permission u/s 21 was obtained then I knew
that the petitioner had never shifted Amritsar. I never told the
Court that the petitioner had never shifted to Amritsar because I
wanted the house on rent".
19. Admittedly the tenant was represented by a lawyer in the said
proceedings. If there had been a plea in the rejoinder that he had not
appeared before the A.R.C. and was not a party to the limited period of
C tenancy created on 30.6.81 even a junior most lawyer would have elicited
the said fact at the beginning of the chief-examimtion itself. Even if the
lawyer had failed to do so, the tenant would have volunteered such a
statement in the course of his evidence. The fact that there was no such
statement by the tenant in his deposition shows not only that there was no
D plea in the rejoinder to that effect when the evidence was recorded by the
A.R.C. but also that the plea raised later is false.
20. It is also significant to note that the abovesaid sentence in the
rejoinder is a~ vague as possible. It stops with merely referring to the
non-appearance of the tenant before the A.R.C and does not go to the
E extent of saying that the tenant was out of the country at that time. The
plea that the tenant had left India in the night of 29th/30th June 1981 was
not raised at any time before the A.R.C or before the Appellate Tribunal
till 18.12.95 when an application was moved by the tenant for permission
to file additional evidence. For the first time in the proceedings, the tenant
F raised the plea in the said application that he had left the country on
30.6.81. Even at that stage the tenant did not choose to give the details of
his alleged flight to Germany from India. Neither the name of the airline
nor the time of the flight was disclosed to the Court. Alongwith the said
application for additional evidence the tenant claimed to have produced a
photo copy of the passport and a tickd alleged lo have been purchased in
G Germany for his onward journey to other countries.
21. If there was a plea in the rejoinder that the tenant did nol appear
before the A.R.C and was not a party to the proceeding, the A.R.C. who
passed an order on 22.10.94 in favour of the tenant would certainly have
H referred to the same and given it as his first reason for holding that the
-.
MOHAN SINGH v. LATE AMAR SINGH [SRINIVASAN, J.]
267
order dated 30.6.81 was not enforceable. For the first time, reference is A
made to the said plea as having been raised in Para 5 of the rejoinder in
the written submission filed on behalf of the tenant before the appellate
Tribunal on 15.1.96. Obviously, the interpolation in the rejoinder was made
some time prior to that. It is also worthy of notice that in the application
for additional evidence there was no statement that a plea had already been
raised in the rejoinder filed before the A.R.C. We have no hesitation
therefore to hold that the rejoinder filed by the tenant before the A.R.C
had been tampered at a later point of time and in all probability when the
matter was pending before the appellate Tribunal in order to support a
new plea raised for the fust time by the tenant.
22. Learned senior counsel for the tenant has submitted that the copy
of the rejoinder produced before the l~ndlord's counsel does not contain
B
c
any initial of the tenant's counsel and it cannot be considered to be
genuin<:. According to him, the said copy was not the one served on the
landlord's counsel in the court of the A.R.C. The argument is obviously D
one in despair. A comparison of the copy filed by the landlord's counsel
with the rejoinder in the Court record shows that certain corrections had
been made in in:; in paragraphs I and II at pages 1 and 2 thereof. The
hand-writing is the same in both and we have no doubt that whoever
corrected the original rejoinder carried oul the correction in the copy
before serving it on the counsel for the landlord. So also, some corrections
E
are typed. They also correspond with each other. In this connection it is
interesting to read the version of the tenant in his affidavit filed in this
Court on 20.3.98. In para 3-4 (p.189 of the paper book) it is stated as
follows:-
F
"However, the petitioner cannot say for sure which copy was
delivered on the other side since that is done by the counsel
generally. However, the petitioner now faintly remembers that
some corrections might have been by the counsel before signing
and filing the rejoinder in trial court on 2.9.1985 and! :; had signed G
a number of copies of the rejoinder and ordinarily his signatures
or the counsel's signatures would have been there on the copy as
supplied/given to the landlord".
The above explanation is palpably false and is hereby rejected. We are H
268
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A convinced that the copy produced by the landlord's counsel is none other
than that served on his counter-part in the court of the A.R.C.
23. Irrespective of the existence of the plea in the rejoinder, we would
consider the question whether the tenant has proved his absence from the
B court of the A.R.C on 30.6.81. The burden is on him to prove the same.
He has miserably failed to do so. We have seen the original record of the
A.R.C.