In a strict, straightforward, sagacious and suave judgment titled Ahuja Trading Company vs Ramesh Chander Aggarwal in CM(M) 1122/2021 & CM No.44110/2021 (for Stay) delivered finally on December 15, 2021, the Delhi High Court minced no words to send across a loud and clear message to all and sundry that dishonest litigants cannot be allowed to abuse the process of court. This judgment came while hearing a tenancy matter. The observation came from Justice Amit Bansal who said that the conduct of the petitioner itself would disentitle him to any relief, and imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on him.

To start with, in this oral judgment authored by Justice Amit Bansal, it is first and foremost mentioned in para 1 that:
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 18th November, 2021 passed by the Additional Rent Controller-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter 'Executing Court') in Execution No. 03/2021, whereby the Executing Court has issued warrants of execution in respect of the order/decree dated 12th July, 2010 passed in Eviction No.28/2010.

As we see, the Bench then points out in para 2 that:
Notice was issued in this petition on 08th December, 2021 and the counsel for the respondent has entered appearance.

While elaborating on the facts, the Bench then envisages in para 3 that:
Brief facts leading to the present petition are that:

3.1 Respondent (hereinafter 'landlord') filed an eviction petition bearing Eviction No.28/2010 before the Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts (hereinafter 'ARC') under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) seeking eviction of the petitioner (hereinafter 'tenant') from the tenanted premises, being Shop No.3674, Gali Sehtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter 'tenanted premises').

3.2 Vide judgment dated 12th July, 2010, the ARC allowed the eviction petition filed by the landlord as the tenant failed to file the leave to defend. However, in terms of settlement arrived at between the tenant and landlord, ten years' time was granted to the tenant to vacate the tenanted premises. Upon expiry of ten years, the landlord filed the execution petition from which the present petition arises.

3.3 Vide impugned order dated 18th November, 2021 passed by the Executing Court, request of the tenant to file reply to the execution petition was rejected and warrants of execution of the order/decree dated 12th July, 2010 were issued after noting that no appeal/revision has been preferred by the tenant against the order/decree dated 12th July, 2010.

It is worth noting that the Bench then enunciates in para 10 that:
Having heard the counsels, this Court is satisfied that the tenant has not approached this Court with clean hands. Notice was issued in the present petition by this Court on the basis that notice in the execution petition was not issued to the tenant. However, the said contention has been completely falsified in view of the submission of the counsel for the landlord as well as the order dated 09th November, 2021 of the Executing Court wherein it has clearly been recorded that notices have been served and no one had appeared on behalf of the tenant before the Executing Court on the said date. Counsel for the tenant submits that fresh notice has been directed to be issued to the tenant vide the order dated 09th November, 2021. However, a perusal of the order dated 09th November, 2021 passed by the Executing Court clearly shows that there was no direction for issuance of fresh notice, only a fresh report was sought from the Nazir with regard to any revision/appeals filed by the tenant against the consent order/decree. The fact that notice was issued to Sh. Arun Ahuja, the partner of the tenant firm has been deliberately suppressed by the tenant in the present petition.

Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 11 that:
It is settled position of law, that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is an equitable jurisdiction and a person who approaches the court with unclean hands cannot be granted relief in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chand Sankla and Ors. Vs. Vikram Cement and Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 58. Though this alone can be a good ground to dismiss the present petition, I have proceeded to examine the case on merits.

Briefly stated, the Bench then observes in para 12 that:
The undisputed position in the present case is that a consent order/decree was passed on 12th July, 2010 by the ARC in terms of which, ten years' time was given to the tenant to continue occupying the tenanted premises.

While pooh-poohing the tenant's dishonest conduct, the Bench then hastens to add in para 13 that:
At the said point of time, no objection was taken by the tenant that the ARC did not have the jurisdiction under the DRC Act. The tenant continued to enjoy the occupation of the tenanted premises for a period of ten years without in any manner raising any challenge in respect of the consent order/decree or raising any grounds with regard to the said order/decree having been passed by the ARC without having inherent jurisdiction. It is only when the period of ten years was over and the tenant did not handover possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord, and the execution proceedings were initiated by the landlord, that the tenant is seeking to raise the aforesaid objection before this Court for the first time. It emerges from the above, that the conduct of the tenant is completely dishonest and reprehensible.

While citing the relevant case law, the Bench then forthrightly observes in para 18 that:
In Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji Vs. Mahadev Channabasappa and Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 120, the brother of the original tenant filed a separate suit against the landlord in order to frustrate the eviction order, eight years after passing of the eviction order. The Supreme Court, while imposing costs on the appellant and dismissing his appeal, observed the following:

13. It is distressing to note that many unscrupulous litigants in order to circumvent orders of Courts adopt dubious ways and take recourse to ingenious methods including filing of fraudulent litigation to defeat the orders of Courts. Such tendency deserves to be taken serious note of and curbed by passing appropriate orders and issuing necessary directions including imposing of exemplary costs. As noticed, despite eviction order having become final nearly a quarter century ago, respondent No. 1 still could not enjoy the benefit of the said order and get possession because of the filing of the present suit by the brother of the person who had suffered the eviction order. Under these circumstances, we quantify the costs payable by the appellant to respondent No. 1 at Rs. 25,000/-.

Be it noted, the Bench explicitly observes in para 19 that:
As noted above, in the present case, the order/decree passed by the ARC was in the nature of a compromise decree, terms of which were known to Sh. Ram Nath Ahuja, the erstwhile partner of the tenant firm, as well as Sh. Arun Ahuja, the son of Sh. Ram Nath Ahuja, whose presence has been recorded in the order/decree dated 12th July, 2010 passed by the ARC. In fact, notice of the execution petition was also issued and was duly served on Sh. Arun Ahuja. But still, he did not appear before the Executing Court on 9 th November, 2021. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Satyanarain Bajoria supra would not come to the aid of the tenant as in the said judgment, the Supreme Court has noted that the decree holder acted fraudulently and gave no notice of the execution proceedings to the judgment debtor. The decree holder in the case before the Supreme Court, deliberately waited for three years and instituted new execution proceedings after an earlier execution petition filed by him had been dismissed, in order to keep the judgment debtor ignorant of the execution proceedings.

As it turned out, the Bench then points out in para 20 that:
As regards the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the tenant in Sunder Dass supra and Apple Finance Ltd. supra, there is no dispute with the proposition that the Executing Court can go behind the decree under execution if the decree itself is nullity having been passed by a court lacking jurisdiction. However, the aforesaid judgments would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the aforesaid judgments are not in the context of execution proceedings filed pursuant to a compromise decree. Further, as noted above, nothing has been placed on record in the present case to demonstrate the inherent lack of jurisdiction in the ARC.

Quite remarkably, the Bench then lays bare in para 21 that:
In the judgment relied upon by counsel for the tenant in Sushil Kumar Mehta supra, the Supreme Court had held that if a Court inherently lacks jurisdiction, the judgment debtor is not precluded from raising the said issue at the time of execution of such an order passed by a Court lacking jurisdiction. It has also been held that defect of jurisdiction cannot be altered by waiver or consent. However, the aforesaid judgment would have no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the present case, the petitioner has not been able to place any notification on record to show that the ARC lacked jurisdiction to pass the order/decree dated 12th July, 2010. Further, the aforesaid judgment was not in the context of a consent decree, whereas in the present case, there is a consent decree between the parties.

Most significantly, it cannot be lost on us that the Bench then minces just no words to hold in para 22 that:
In view of the discussion above, the position that emerges is that the tenant voluntarily entered into a compromise and pursuant thereto, enjoyed the benefit of staying in the tenanted premises for a period of ten years. Now, at the stage of execution, the tenant cannot raise objections with regard to the jurisdiction of the ARC that recorded the consent order/decree. The case of the tenant herein was based on concealment of facts and the conduct of the tenant has been dishonest and unscrupulous. As per the compromise entered into between the parties, the tenant should have handed over possession of the tenanted premises in July, 2020, i.e. after passing of ten years of the order/decree dated 12th July, 2010 passed by the ARC. Despite signing statements to this effect before the ARC under Order XXIII Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, as recorded in the order/decree passed by the ARC on 12th July, 2010, the tenant held on to the tenanted premises. In fact, copies of the statements recorded by the parties before the ARC have also deliberately not been filed along with the present petition. Dishonest litigants cannot be allowed to abuse the process of the Court. The conduct of the petitioner itself would disentitle the petitioner of any relief in the present petition.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 23 that:
In view of the discussion above, the present petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

To conclude, the long and short of this extremely commendable, cogent, composed and convincing judgment by a single Judge Bench comprising of Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court is that dishonest litigants cannot be allowed to abuse the process of courts. It was also made clear by the Delhi High Court in this notable judgment that the dishonest conduct of the petitioner would disentitle him from obtaining any relief from the court! It was thus also made clear that to get relief the petitioner has to come to the court with clean hands! There can be just no denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh