- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. Ram Ji Lal, the petitioner filed Misc. Application No. 13345 of 2001 to recall the order dated 6-2-1996 and hear the writ petition afresh on merits.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 has tiled ap plication under Article 215 of the Con stitution of India to take proceedings for contempt against the petitioner for dis obeying the order passed by this Court and to dismiss the application No. 13345 of 2001 filed by the petitioner. The facts as disclosed in the writ petition indicate as to how a person after obtaining order from the Court and enjoy ing the benefit of the time granted to va cate the premises files false affidavit to flout the settlement arrived at during the pendency of the writ petition to deny the compromise on the basis of which the Court has granted time to vacate the ac commodation at the time of dismissing the writ petition. The landlady, Smt. Suraj Mukhi, Respondent No. 2, filed application under Section 21 (l) (a) U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) on 3rd September, 1985 for release of House No. 74/114-A Dhankuti, Kanpur which is under the tenancy of the petitioner with the allegation that her family consists of ten persons and the accommodation with her was insufficient for the need of her family members. The petitioner denied that the need of the landlady was bonafide. The prescribed authority on consideration of material evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation for her family members was bonafide and if the application is rejected she would suffer a greater hardship and on these findings allowed the application on 21st August, 1987. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 23-7-1989. The petitioner preferred Writ Peti tion No. 20578 of 1990. This Court while admitting the writ petition granted inter im stay order. The parties exchanged af fidavits. The matter was taken up by the Court on 20-4-1995.
(3.) SRI Rajesh Tandon, Senior Advo cate who was then appearing as Counsel for the petitioner and SRI A. K. Yog (as he then was) appeared as Counsel for the respondent. The Court on the basis of the statement of the parties passed the follow ing order: 'shri Rajesh Tandon has filed a sup plementary affidavit today, copy of which has been served on Shri A. K. Yog on 18-4-1995. Shri A. K. Yog states that he does not want to file any reply to this affidavit. At this stage Shri Rajesh Tandon learned Counsel for the petitioner has made an offer that without prejudice to the merits of the case the landlord may have either the front portion or the rear portion of the disputed accommoda tion. Shri A. K. Yog has opted for the rear por tion. Accordingly, the possession of the rear Prescribed Authority that he had no knowledge with regard to the order passed by the High Court and he is to file an applica tion to recall that order. The Prescribed Authority granted time for moving such an application. The petitioner filed the present application No. 13345 of 2001 on 22nd February, 2001 to recall the order dated 6-2-1996 passed by me with the allegation that he never entered into compromise with the landlady- respondent and he never put signature on the affidavit filed in support of the compromise application. He had never instructed his Counsel to file an applica tion for compromise as set out in the af fidavit filed in support of the compromise application. 11. On behalf of respondent Aditya Kumar Gupta, son of landlady Respon dent No. 2, as pairokar has filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in sup port of his application. It is stated that the petitioner had signed the affidavit at the time of filing of the compromise applica tion on 6th February, 1996. 12. The question was as to whether the affidavit filed in support of theapplica-tion for compromise bears signature of the petitioner. I asked the petitioner to appear in person to examine himself as to whether he had signed the compromise. He appeared in this Court on 21st April, 2001. He was cross- examined by the Counsel for the respondent. In his statement it was stated that he did not put his signature and thumb impression on the affidavit filed in support of the compromise application dated 6th February, 1996. He on the other hand made statement that his Counsel SRI Dev Brat Mukherjee used to obtain signatures on blank papers. I further asked SRI Dev Brat Mukherjee, Advocate to make his statement regarding signing of the compromise applica tion and also as to whether the petitioner had put his signature on the affidavit filed in support of the application. He categorically made statement that the application bears his signature. Ramji Lal, the petitioner had come to him and compromise was drafted and in fact he had put his signature. He made the following statement which has been duly signed by him also in the order- sheet:- 'sri Dev Brat Mukherjee, Advocate ap peared before me. He made statement that the affidavit bears his signature. Ram Ji Lal, petitioner had come to him and compromise application was drafted and in fact Ram Ji Lai, petitioner had put his signature. Sd/dev Brat Mukherjee, Advocate 25-4-2001. ' 13. I have seen the signature of Ram Ji Lai which he has signed before me when he made statement in this Court and his signatures on the writ petition and the-affidavit filed in support of the com promise application. They appear of the same person, the pen pause and style of signatures are same. 14. Secondly, he made statement that his Counsel used to obtain signatures on blank papers which shows that he made statement that if it is found that the docu ment contains his signatures, then it may be taken that his signatures were obtained by the Counsel on blank papers. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of SRI Dev Brat Mukherjee, Advocate who is very senior Counsel and will not make statement against his own client for whom he had once appeared. 15. The other circumstances also in dicate that the version of the petitioner is to tally false. 16. The case was on the list for hear ing. The Court had passed order on 20-4-1995 on the statement of SRI Rajesh Tan-don, the then Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was prepared to offer rear or front portion of the disputed ac commodation to the landlady. The petitioner changed his Counsel and engaged SRI Dev Brat Mukherjee, Advo cate with the allegation that he had never instructed his Counsel, SRI Rajesh Tandon to make such an offer and had prayed to recall the order dated 5-5-1995 which was passed by this Court in pursuance of the said offer. Thereafter the case was listed thrice and SRI Dev Brat Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, sought adjournment of the case and when on 6th February, 1996 the case was taken up, com promise application was filed supported with a joint affidavit that the case may be decided in terms of compromise. The petitioner has not given any reason as to why for five years he did not make enquiry regarding the case. He fully enjoyed the accommodation for five years in terms of the compromise and thereafter when the execution application was filed, he started saying that he never filed the compromise application supported with his own af fidavit. 17, There is one more important cir cumstance against the petitioner. The landlady had filed suit against the petitioner before the Judge Small Causes Court. The order was passed against the petitioner and he filed Small Cause Court Revision No. 105 of 1993, Ramji Lal v. Suraj Mukhi, in the Court of. VIII Addi tional District Judge, Kanpur Nager, to the effect that in view of compromise referred to in the judgment of this Court on 6-2-1996 in Writ Petition No. 20578 of 1990 the matter be decided accordingly. The Revisional Court in pursuance of the said compromise disposed of the revision according to the orders of this Court and the compromise dated 22nd March, 1996. The Revisional Court passed the order as follows. :- 'compromise verified accepted. Revision is decided in terms of compromise 31-Ka shall be part of revision. ' 18, The petitioner was cross-ex amined on this question in this Court and he made statement that he had no knowledge of such verification of the com promise before the Revisional Court. It is totally strange that a person, who files revision in the Court and was pending, had no knowledge of the orders passed in the said revision for the last five years. 19. The petitioner has made deliberately false statement and filed af fidavit in this Court and is guilty of perjury. He did so only to get the order recalled by this Court passed on 9-2-1996 to avoid eviction in pursuance of the order. It is abuse of process of Court also. 20. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar is directed to evict Ramji Lal the petitioner from the disputed accommodation within 48 hours from the date Of production of a certified copy of this order before him and put the landlady Respondent No. . 2 Smt. Suraj Mukhi Gupta, resident of 74/114-A, Dhankuti, Kanpur Nagar in possession. 21. Civil Misc. Application No. 13345 of 2001 is rejected with costs of Rs. 5,000 payable by the applicant to the landlady Respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today. 22. Ramji Lal the petitioner, is given show cause notice under Section 34o/344 Crpc why proceedings be not drawn against him for filing false affidavit dated 12th February, 2001 by him in support of the application No. 13345 of 2001 and making false statement in this Court. He shall submit explanation by 20-7-2001 and appear in person on that date. The Registry shall take steps to serve him fixing 20th July, 2001. Application rejected. .;