H.S. Brar, J.@mdashJaswant Rai Jain had invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court by filing Civil Revision, registered as Civil Revision No. 3606
of 1996, u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 23.8,1996 passed by Tejwinder Singh, Rent Controller,
Chandigarh whereby the objections filed by Jaswant Rai Jain, against the execution application filed by Surinder Singh Bhuttal, were dismissed.
2. Civil Revision filed by Jaswant Rai Jain was dismissed vide my judgment dated 15.3.1997. Reported as Jaswant Rai Jain Vs. Surinderpal Singh
Bhuttal and Another, Jaswant Rai Jain filed SLP bearing No. 6864 of 1997 in the Supreme Court of India which came up for hearing on 4.4.1997
Reported as (1997) 116 (2) PLR 388 (SC) and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court with the following directions:-
We find from the judgment of the High Court (pages 18 and 27 of the printed paper book) that the High Court has come to the conclusion that
the lease deeds produced by the petitioner have been fabricated. In the light of the clear finding on that score, the High Court should have ordered
prosecution. We direct that the High Court will take immediate steps in that behalf. We also make it clear that all steps for expeditious execution of
the decree will be taken.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the perusal of the various documents and other record available on the file, it was held by
me as under:-
From these documents it is further proved that the alleged lease deed dated 1.11.1979 which has been produced by the petitioner and which is
placed at page No. 167 of the record of the trial Court is made up and fabricated. It is clearly proved from the letter dated 18.10.79 addressed by
I.T.B.P. to Brig. Gurkirpal Singh, father of the decree-holder that the premises in question was on lease with ITBP till 30,11.79 when its
possession was delivered to the decree-holder through his father Brig. Gurkirpal Singh. The fakeness of the alleged lease deed dated 1.11.79
produced by the petitioner is further strengthened by the fact that this lease deed could not obviously be executed on 1.11.79 between the
petitioner and Brig. Gurkirpal Singh father and attorney of the decree-holder Col. Surinder Pal Singh when the possession of the premises in
question is proved from the documents mentioned above with ITBP till 30.11.79. I have compared the alleged signatures of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh
on the alleged lease agreement dated 1.11.79 with the signatures of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh on the document placed at page No. 239 of the record
of the executing Court and as described above vide which handing/taking over of Kothi No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh, took place between
the lessee, ITBP and the lessor Brig. Gurkirpal Singh. Even when seen with a naked eye the signatures on the alleged lease deed dated 1.11.79
and the signatures on the document vide which handing/taking over of Kothi No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh took place between ITBP and
Brig. Gurkirpal Singh are not of the one and the same person. Authenticity of the letter dated 18.10.79 referred to above and the document of
handing/taking over of Kothi No. 1013, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh referred to above is not in doubt and remained un-challenged before the
executing Court as well as before this Court. Thus, the signatures of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh when he signed as a lessor at the time of taking over the
possession of Kothi No. 1013,. Sector 27-B, Chandigarh shall be taken as the authentic and genuine signatures of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh. All this
evidence clearly shows that signatures of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh have been fabricated on the alleged lease deed dated 1.11.1979 produced by the
petitioner.
The hollowness of the claim of the petitioner is further proved from a letter dated 4.7.88 which he has himself placed on the file and is found at
page 147 of the record of the executing Court. The opening lines of this letter written by Brig. Gurkirpal Singh to Jaswant Rai Jain about the
contract of lease of the house which was started on 1st of November, 1987. It is further written in the letter that the rent for the period from 1st
November be sent by a draft at an early date. Reference of Rakesh Jain, Judgment-Debtor also comes in this letter. It would be better if the letter
is reproduced in extenso :
Brigadier Gurkirpal Singh (Retd.)
V & PO Bhanohar
Distt. Ludhiana
4.7.88
My dear Jaswant Rai Jee,
Sat Siri Akal,
The present contract for the lease was started on 1st Nov., 87 I have not received a penny of rent for this period so far. I had written to you earlier
but was informed that you were abroad.
I then received a letter from you in early April that the rent will be dispatched by the end of the month. I.... for the draft for a couple of months and
had gone to Calcutta for an operation to my eye and for a medical check up. I returned from Calcutta about a week back after all the medical
formalities and a cataract operation to the second eye.
In the meantime, I received a letter from Rakesh some time I think in June informing me that you are back from abroad and I could come and
discuss.
I am writing this to inform you that atleast for a fortnight or so I am not allowed to move about too much. I would however come later.
Would you kindly see that rent for the period from 1st Nov. is sent by a draft at an early date. I just cannot enquire the reason for this delay. I will
however come and discus later whatever you wish to discuss.
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
Sh. Jaswant Rai Jain,
1013, Sector 27-B.
This letter establishes one fact that the contract of lease regarding the house in question was made vide agreement of licence dated 1.11.1987 and
this agreement of licence has been produced by the Decree-Holder on the file of the executing Court at, page No. 247 and this agreement of
licence dated 1.11.87 has been entered into by Brig. Gurkirpal Singh with Rakesh Kumar son of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner
has not produced any agreement of licence/lease etc. dated 1,11.1987, instead he has produced a lease agreement dated 3.8.1987 entered into
with Brig. Gurkirpal Singh the father of the decree-holder. Read with his own letter, referred to above, at page No. 147 of the record of the,
executing Court and the agreement of licence dated 1.11.87 produced by the decree-holder which is at page No. 247 of the record of the
executing Court and which has been referred to in the letter dated 4.7.88 addressed to the petitioner (the letter which has been produced by the
petitioner himself in the executing Court) it shows that this so-called lease agreement dated 3.8.87 has been manufactured after the death of Brig.
Gurkirpal Singh and after the son of the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain lost his case upto the Supreme Court. I think that no further evidence is
needed to be referred to for holding that the petitioner has prepared false lease agreements after his son Rakesh Kumar lost the case from the
Decree Holder upto the Supreme Court. It is further inferred from all this that the petitioner in order to manufacture this evidence has tried to make
use of the letter written to him in confidence by Brig. Gurkirpal Singh only to ask for the rent of the house from the father of the ""Judgment Debtor
but still false-hood has no legs to stand. As referred to above, it has been roved from the petitioner''s own evidence which has , placed on the file
of the executing court that he has only tried to prepare the false documents by affixing the name of the Birg. Gurkirpal Singh on some lease
agreements by which the petitioner is alleged to have been shown as a tenant. The authenticity of agreement of licence dated 1.11.87 cannot be
doubted and it remains unchallenged. The reference of this lease dated 1.11.87 is rather found in the letter in possession of the petitioner himself, as
discussed above. Even the signatures on the agreement for licence dated 1.11.87 produced by the decree holder and the signatures on the alleged
lease deed dated 3.8.87 differ a lot. It shows that the petitioner has tried to manufacture the signatures of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh on the document
dated 3.8.87 and this agreement alongwith the other documents which he has produced on the file of the executing Court saw the light of the day
only after the petitioner''s son lost his case up to the Supreme Court.
As discussed above, even from the naked eye it seems that the signatures of Brig. Gurkirpal Singh on the alleged lease deeds produced by the
petitioner have been fabricated. It is unfortunate that Brig. Gurkirpal Singh is no more as he has died before objection petition was filed by the
petitioner before the executing Court and the petitioner has tried to make use of his absence in order to manufacture the alleged lease deeds and to
delay the delivery of possession of the demised premises to the decree holder who has won his case up to the Supreme Court.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, it is expedient in the interest of justice that Jaswant Rai Jain be prosecuted for the offences committed by him under
Sections 463, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Registrar of this Court, is directed to lodge a written complaint against Jaswant Rai Jain
before the competent Court having jurisdiction to try the aforesaid offences at Chandigarh.
5. The record of this; revisional Court as well as the Executing Court is also sent to the Registrar.