CHANDRAPAL SINGH Vs. MAHARAJ SINGH
LAWS(SC)-1982-1-31
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on January 15,1982

CHANDRAPAL SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
MAHARAJ SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Desai, J. - (1.) A frustrated landlord after having met his waterloo in the hierarchy of civil courts, has further enmeshed the tenant in a frivolous criminal prosecution which prima facie appears to be an abuse of the process of law. The facts when stated are so telling that the further discussion may appear to be superfluous.
(2.) One Jai Prakash Nagar was the tenant of the premises bearing No. 385/2 situated in Mohalla Kothiat, Civil Lines, Bulandshahr. Father of Maharaj Singh, a practising advocate is the landlord of the premises. According to the landlord tenant Jaiprakash Nagar vacated the premises on January 2, 1978 and as required by Section 115 (2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972; ('Rent Act' for short), gave a notice of the same to the District Magistrate. There is a similar obligation on the landlord and pursuant to this obligation as prescribed in Section 15 (1) of the Rent Act. Maharaj Singh also gave intimation of the Vacancy to. the District Magistrate on January 5, 1979. The Rent Control Inspector made a report on January 7, 1978 that the premises was found locked at the time of his inspection. Amongst others appellant Chandrapal Singh also moved the Rent Control Officer, the delegate of the District Magistrate, for allotment of the premises to. him because he was occupying adjacent premises bearing No. 385/1. The proceedings for allotment ended in, favour of present appellant Chandrapal Singh on October 22, 1978. Maharaj Singh and his father Dhiraj Singh preferred R. C. R. No. 58/78 before the District Judge, Bulandshahr impleading present appellant 1 Chandrapal, Singh being the allottee of the premises. The Fourth Addl. District Judge before whom the matter came up for hearing confirmed the order of allotment but set aside the finding of the Rent Control Officer about the rent of the premises as well as observations about the ownership of the premises. The net result was that the order of allotment in favour of appellant 1 became final.
(3.) Maharaj Singh son of the landlord filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, against the present appellants alleging that the three appellants had committed offences under Sections 193, 199 and 201, Indian Penal Code. Appellant 1 is the allottee and appellants 2 and 3 are persons who had filed affidavits in the course of the allotment proceedings before the Rent Control Officer in support of the claim for allotment made by appellant 1. It was alleged in the complaint that the premises bearing No. 385/ 2 comprises three rooms which formed the subject-matter of allotment proceedings before the Rent Control Officer and appellant 1 had taken forcible possession of one of the three rooms and the verandah and was in unauthorised occupation and this led to the complainant Maharaj Singh, Advocate, filing the criminal complaint under Section 448/426, I.P.C. which proceeding is pending. It was further alleged that in order to save himself from the criminal prosecution appellant 1 knowingly and intentionally made a false statement that Jai Prakash Nagar whose vacating the premises led. to the allotment proceedings was not in possession of three rooms and a verandah but he was in possession of one room, kitchen, a bathroom, a latrine and a courtyard. According to the complainant Maharaj Singh this was a false statement. In paragraph 3 of 'the complaint there is a peculiar statement which shows how chagrined the complainant was on the allotment proceedings terminating against him. He has stated in paragraph 8 as under "That the Rent Control Officer conspired with accused No. 1 and in order to save him of the charges under S. 448/ 426 and knowing that he was taking a wrong decision, decided without authority that Chandrapal was not in unauthorised possession. This is not true that the portion was rented at Rs. 60/- per month. The Rent Control Officer has decided that the accused Chandrapal is in possession of the up per portion of house No. 395/2 since 1972 and this decision (sic) to cause prejudice since this issue was to be decided in the court. Therefore the applicant will submit his case against the Rent Control. Officer" (underlining ours);


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.