Ravi Swaroop Dhavan, J. - (1.) THIS matter between the landlord and tenant has been in litigation between the parties for almost 20 years since 1972. Two writ petitions are pending before this court, one for 10 years and the other for 7 years. The tenant in one of the writ petitions is the petitioner M.G.A. Brass. One of the landlords, now dead, was a senior member of the Bar. He was arrayed as an opposite party. He died last year. The other writ petition is by the landlord in which the petitioner is the opposite party. The landlord now, after substitution is Mr. Prakash Krishna, also a member of the Bar at the High Court, substituting the name of his father, the late Mr. Radha Krishna, Advocate. The writ petitions have been in several courts. Many Judges have declined to do the petitioner's case for one reason or the other, which seems to be getting apparent gradually and discernible from the record. 'The Hon'ble the Chief Justice had virtually to assign these cases to this Court twice. This is also a matter of record. After, the landlord, Mr. Radha Krishna, Advocate, died, the petitioner filed an application on November 15, 1991 supported by an affidavit making the following statement: 6. That the Hon'ble Justice R.S. Dhavan, J. had admitted in Court that Sri Radha Krishna, Advocate, was known to him and hence he had taken the opportunity of taking undue advantage of misrepresenting matters to this Hon'ble Court, Sri Prakash Krishna, Advocate, is also taking advantage of this Hon'ble Court to interfere with the procedures of the Court by showing interest by openly in his application dated 10 -10 -1991, in ask (sic) for the said writ cases to be heard and decided by the Hon'ble Justice R.S. Dhavan, J. which has set up an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner/respondent. While Mr. Radha Krishna, Advocate, was alive and appearing in the case in person, the petitioner did not have the courage to say anything in his presence. He has done it after his death. The petitioner was at a loss to justify the situation in the presence of Mr. Prakash Krishna, Advocate, who refused With vehemence the statement of the petitioner in the affidavit about his father after the latter's death. Mr. Prakash Krishna, Advocate, appearing in person also drew the attention of the court that the petitioner by habit makes incorrect allegations against judges generally. Mr. Prakash Krishna, Advocate, has also drawn the attention of the court that the petitioner Mr. G.A. Brass has been threatening the registry of the Court not to list the matter before this Court as tied up or part heard. The Court's attention has further been drawn to the record of the writ petition. The cases were nominated to be heard by this Court by an order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on April 21, 1987 and on one occasion when this court had sent the file back to the secretariat of the Chief Justice, the record came back, under the orders of the Hon'ble the Acting Chief justice. Mr. Prakash Krishna also drew the attention of the Court that the petitioner habitually says unpleasant things about the Court, in Court, and the exercise of releasing cases on this count, he submits with respect has happened too many times. This is injustice to him and the advantage of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has succeeded in having his cases released from one Court to another, and during this game his father died without seeing the result on the writ petition during his life time.
(2.) ON 25 -11 -1991 on the matter being listed for hearing, the petitioner Mr. G.A. Brass, declined to argue the cases by saying in so many words that he does not have a lawyer, thus, he cannot present his case. The record shows that Mr. G.A. Brass engages lawyers and leaves them. On one occasion the Court offered him the service of a lawyer, gratis, but he would not accept the suggestion of the Court. Thus, this belies the contention of Mr. G.A. Brass that he is without a lawyer. Engaging lawyers and leaving them is only a ruse to have the cases adjourned. When Mr. G.A. Brass virtually told the court that he will not argue his cases the court cautioned him that he would be subverting justice in placing impediments in the progress of the proceedings of the cases and that this may amount contempt and if he continues this posture the court will consider taking out proceedings against him for contempt in the face of the court. The petitioner declined to argue the cases for no valid reasons. The court summoned the Joint Registrar alongwith the Court Officer and gave an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the incorrect statement made in his application/affidavit. The petitioner then offered an unconditional apology and retracted his statement to submit that he wants to reside in the accommodation until he finds another house. The court indicated to him that the court can consider the request that he desires reasonable time but there cannot be vague orders in permitting him to reside in an accommodation, which has seen a long drawn litigation, and the time to vacate is of the tenant's choosing. The court is constrained to notice these facts as on the merits of it the petitioner repeated the same style in conducting his cases before the courts below. The appeal of the petitioner under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was pending consideration before the IInd Additional District Judge, Allahabad as Radha Krishna and another v. G.A. Brass Civil Appeal No. 292 of 1974 The appeal had been taken up on remand from the High Court in an earlier writ petition. It is for this reason that this court has mentioned earlier that this is not the first time that the writ petition of the petitioner has been to the High Court. Earlier reference to the earlier writ petition between the parties will be given later. In paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment the learned Additional District Judge aforesaid records: 12. Ever since the case has been received on remand from the Hon'ble High Court the respondent Sri G.A. Brass has not been co -operating with the court and he has been misusing the process of the court by seeking repeated adjournments to 8 -11 -1983, 2 -10 -1983, 20 -2 -1984 and 23 -7 -1984 and even today on 26 -7 -1984 efforts have been made to seek adjournment ultimately after getting fed up the application for adjournment has been rejected today.
(3.) IT appears that the petitioner declined to argue his case before the IInd Additional District Judge, aforesaid, as the learned Additional District Judge records that he heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusing the records decided the appeal. The earlier writ petition before the High Court was writ petition No. 5295 of 1975 decided on May 9, 1977. Reference to an earlier litigation has been placed on record in the judgment of the Additional District Judge. It reads: The landlord went up in writ before the High Court. That was writ petition No. 2597 of 1975 and decided by the Hon'ble High Court on May 9, 1977. The matter has been remanded to this court. After remand the matter was again decided by the III Additional District Judge and the landlord's petition was again dismissed. The landlords filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8503 of 1978 and that was decided by the Hon'ble High Court on 1 -8 -1980. For the purposes of record, the list of the cases filed by Mr. G.A. Brass against his landlord or the cases which the landlord had to file to recover rent, and other cases, the details of which were given to Court are: - - 1. Case No. 303 of 1972: G.A. Brass v. Radha Krishna. Application under Section 27 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for restoration of electricity connection Decided ex parte. Review applied by G.A. Brass dismissed on 1 -1 -1973. 2. Case No. 695 of 1973: G.A. Brass v. Radha Krishna, under Section 27 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Dismissed on 17 -10 -1973. 3. Civil Revision No. 36 of 1971: G.A. Brass v. Radha Krishna, against the decision in case No. 301 of 1971. Revision application dismissed on 17 -1 -1976. 4. Judge Small Cause Court Suit No. 885 of 1974: Radha Krishna v. G.A. Brass, for recovery of arrears of rent, water and electric charges, Suit partly decreed. 5. Revision by G.A. Brass. Dismissed. 6. Second revision by G.A. Brass. Dismissed by High Court. ;