Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said the proceedings in the court of law are initiated for adjudication of disputes and to provide justice to the parties, by which trust and confidence of the litigants reposed on the great institution can be maintained. In case, one of the parties misuses the said process or attempts to obtain an order by trick and strategem, the courts would be justified in imposing the costs for igniting such vexatious litigation, it said.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar raised the cost imposed by the high court upon the appellant, who claimed to owner of a property, in landlord-tenant dispute, saying a sum of Rs 20,000 was meager, which deserved to be increased to Rs 50,000.

The bench pointed out that the petitioner had proceeded to pursue his vexatious claim even before the top court as it directed the petitioner to deposit the costs before the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Allahabad within a period of three months.

Court dismissed the appeal filed by Leelawati (dead) through the legal representatives against the Allahabad High Court order, which had rejected a writ petition with the cost.

As per the facts of the matter, a suit seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide need was filed by appellant which was decreed by the prescribed authority under the Rent Act. On filing the rent appeal by the tenant, it was allowed for the reason that in a suit based on bona fide need, ownership had not been proved by the landlord. 

Assailing the said order, a writ petition was filed by the landlord. The high court, while entertaining the writ petition, passed an interim order on September 22, 2006, directing to pay Rs 2000 per month as enhanced rent from September 2006. It was also observed that in case of default in payment of enhanced current rent, the landlord could get the possession of the suit premises with the help of police after serving notice of one month. 

The appellant alleged that the enhanced rent had not been paid. However, the said writ petition was finally dismissed on December 05, 2012. 

While rejecting the writ petition filed against the judgment passed in the rent appeal, which dismissed the suit of eviction, the high court observed that the order of the appellate authority did not reflect any perversity, therefore, in a limited scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it refrained from interfering in the order of rent appeal and vacated the interim order also.

As per the interim order of September 22, 2006, and till the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant could not get possession, therefore, she filed a writ petition which was disposed of by order on November 26, 2013. 

The apex court noted it was clear that in furtherance to the order of September 22, 2006, due to default in payment of the current enhanced rent, direction to take possession could not be fructified. On submitting representation to the police personnel, no action was taken. Thus, the appellant filed another writ petition in 2015 which came to be dismissed with cost by the order impugned.       

Having noted the facts of the matter, the bench said, "We are compelled to observe that, on dismissal of the writ petition, interim order if any, passed in the proceedings would merge with the final order."

In other words, the court pointed out, on dismissal of the writ petition on December 05, 2012, the interim order of September 22, 2006, had merged with the final order and lost its efficacy. 

"As such, the action of the appellant persuading the court by filing the writ petition does not seem bona fide. The High Court, in our view, has rightly deprecated the action of the appellant to approach High Court again and again for implementation of the interim order passed in the dismissed writ petition lacks bona fides of petitioner and imposition of cost is fully justified," the bench said.

Case Title: Leelawati (Dead) Thr LRs Vs State of UP & Ors