Dishonest litigants cannot be allowed to abuse process of court: Delhi High Court

Dishonest litigants cannot be allowed to abuse the process of court, the Delhi High Court observed recently while hearing a tenancy matter (Ahuja Trading Company v. Ramesh Chander Aggarwal)..The observation came from Justice Amit Bansal, who said that the conduct of the petitioner itself would dis-entitle him to any relief, and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on him..The facts of the case were that in 2010, the respondent landlord had filed an eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner tenant from the tenanted premises in Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. By an order dated July 12, 2010, Additional Rent Controller at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi allowed the eviction petition filed by the landlord as the tenant failed to file the leave to defend.However, in terms of a 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. The ARC issued warrants of execution in November 2021. This order came to be challenged before the High Court..When the Court asked counsel for the tenant as to when the notice of the execution petition was served on the tenant, he could not provide an answer. In this background, the Court noted,"Having heard the counsel, 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.".Though the Court noted that a person who approaches the court with unclean hands cannot be granted relief in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, it proceeded to decide the matter on merits.It held that the petitioner's argument challenging the jurisdiction of the ARC held no water."...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," the order stated..Having made these observations, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of ₹50,000.Advocates Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Mansi Gupta and Rahul Kumar Choudhary appeared for the petitioner. Advocates Prabhav Ralli and Shivaz Berry appeared for the respondent..[Read Order]