D.N. Jha, J.@mdashPetitioner has directed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 28884 contained in Annexures 2 and 3 passed by learned Munsif in Execution Case No. 9 of 1982.
2. The facts involved in the writ petition are extremely unfortunate. Opposite party no. 3 Babu Ram had initiated proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P., Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After a long drawnout proceedings the landlord succeeded against the petitioner Deep Chand who is a tenant of a shop situate at Mabmoodabad, District Sitapur. Ultimately a writ petition had been filed in this Court which was dismissed. However, the Court had been pleased to allow four months to the petitioner to vacate the premises. It has been brought to my notice that thereafter the petitioner obtained a subsequent extension for a period of two months. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner is, that negotiations took place between him and opposite party no. 2 whereby the petitioner had agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 2500/ per year for the said shop. He also agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 126/ as rent for a period from 1982 to 14101982.
3. This document which is Annexure1 has been put up for registration by the petitioner. On the basis of this document in the execution proceedings pending before the Court of Munaif it was prayed that further proceedings be dropped. At the same time a transfer application bad been presented with respect to this execution case before learned District Judge. It has been stated that the execution case and the transfer application before the District Judge were fixed for disposal on 28884. The petitioner diligently prosecuted his proceedings before the District Judge and when his application for transfer was rejected he appeared before the executing court, that is, before the learned Munsif where he learnt that exparte proceedings took place. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has rushed before this Court.
4. The petition has been resisted on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and counter affidavit has been filed.
5. It would not be out of place to mention that although this petition has not been admitted but an interim order had been granted on 6984 to the effect that the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed nor shall he be dispossessed till 15101984 which was the date fixed for admission of the case. The petition has come up for admission today.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the averments and cross averments made by the contesting parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently placed reliance on Annexure 1 purporting to be the registered copy of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and landlord opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 placed a certified copy of this document a perusal of which shows that only part of the registered document had been filed as Annexure 1. The averments contained in Annexure No. 1 had blown the air in favour of the petitioner but on perusal of the complete document, certified copy of which has been produced by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, I have no hesitation in observing that the petitioner did not come with clean hands before this court and had practised fraud before the temple of justice. The production of an incomplete document, as observed earlier, had swayed the Court for passing the interim order and if I had not seen the certified copy of the document probably I would have admitted the petition and confirmed the interim order without proceeding with the arguments. I have already observed above that the petitioner deliberately did not file a photostate copy of the registered document because registration had been obtained by the petitioner in absence of opposite party no. 2 and when notice was issued to opposite party no, 2 he appeared before the Registrar and denied his signature on the document which was presented for registration. In this view of the matter I do not think that the petitioner is entitled for any relief from this Court. It is well settled that if a person does not come with clean hands before a Court of law he is not entitled to any relief.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon me that it was in hot haste that the writ petition had been filed and inadvertantly incomplete document was attached to this petition as Annexure 1. I am not impressed by this argument as the reading of Annexure 1 would indicate that it is a complete document in itself. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appeal to any reason that it was in hot haste that an incomplete document had been attached to this petition.
8. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a fresh contract entered into between the landlord and the tenant and the term had been reduced to writing and, therefore, the petitioner could not be ejected by means of the execution proceedings ordered by the learned Munsif. It was for the petitioner to have appeared before the Court of learned Munsif to persuade him on that score. It has often been seen that in matters relating to shops and houses attempts are generally made by the tenants to delay the proceedings as far as possible and dilatory tactics are adopted. The instant case is a living example. It is, no doubt, true that hierarchy of Courts have been created and, therefore, one who approaches a court of law has a right to exhaust all possible avenues that are available to him but at the same time it is expected that he will prosecute his proceedings legally and diligently without trying to practise fraud on the Court.
9. With these observations this petition is dismissed in limine. Stay order passed earlier is vacated.
(Petition dismissed)
