Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a landlord-tenant relationship governed by a rent note executed on December 8, 1953, for premises used by the tenant to run an oil mill. The landlord sued for ejectment on May 2, 1959 in the Court of Munsif, East Jaipur City, alleging that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent from November 1, 1957 onwards and that the tenancy had expired by efflux of time on December 1, 1958. The tenant resisted ejectment, relying on Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 and claiming waiver by acceptance of rent. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding no three defaults of two months each within 18 months. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City reversed the trial court and granted a decree of ejectment, holding that three defaults had been committed. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the tenant's second appeal on July 30, 1962 and refused leave for a Letters Patent appeal. The tenant then obtained special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court on September 26, 1962. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlord filed a petition seeking revocation of the special leave, alleging that the special leave petition contained inaccurate, untrue and misleading statements. The Supreme Court examined the grounds in the special leave petition and found that the last ground falsely asserted that the first appellate court and the High Court had set up a new case by considering defaults prior to December 2, 1958 that were not relied upon by the landlord, whereas paragraph 3 of the plaint specifically referred to those defaults. Another ground claimed that the tenant 'admittedly did not make any default after December 1, 1958', omitting the material fact that the deposit of Rs. 648/- made at the first hearing was accepted by the landlord without prejudice. The Court rejected the appellant's counsel's contentions that at the admission stage only the construction of Section 13(1)(a) had been argued and that the impugned grounds were copied from the High Court appeal, holding that such arguments were not decisive and that material misstatements constituted a serious infirmity. The Court emphasized that special leave petitions are taken at face value and that making untrue or misleading statements betrays the confidence of the Court. Accordingly, the Supreme Court revoked the special leave and dismissed the appeal with costs. On the appellant's undertaking to deliver possession within six months, the Court directed the respondent not to execute the ejectment decree for six months from the date of judgment.
Headnote
A) Supreme Court Practice - Special Leave Petition - Revocation of Special Leave for Misleading Statements - Constitution of India, Article 136 (implicit), Supreme Court Rules (implicit), and Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, Sections 13(1)(a), 13(4) - The respondent landlord sought revocation of special leave granted to tenant appellant, alleging that the special leave petition contained materially inaccurate and misleading statements regarding rent defaults - The Supreme Court found that the last ground alleged that first appellate court and High Court set up a new case beyond pleadings when paragraph 3 of plaint specifically referred to defaults prior to December 2, 1958; another ground claimed admitted no default after December 1, 1958 while omitting that deposit of Rs. 648 was accepted without prejudice - Held that special leave was revoked and appeal dismissed with costs because material misstatements in special leave petition betrayed the court's confidence and special leave may have been granted on strength of such misstatements; court also directed respondent not to execute eviction decree for six months on appellant's unconditional undertaking (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether special leave granted to appellant should be revoked on the ground that the special leave petition contained inaccurate, untrue and misleading statements; and whether the appeal should be dismissed without considering merits.
Final Decision
Special leave granted to the appellant was revoked and the appeal dismissed with costs. The Court directed that on the appellant's unconditional undertaking to deliver possession within six months from the date of judgment, the respondent should not execute the ejectment decree for six months.
Law Points
- Special leave granted by Supreme Court can be revoked if special leave petition contains inaccurate
- untrue or misleading statements
- statements of fact and grounds of fact in special leave petitions are taken at face value by Supreme Court
- parties must not make untrue or misleading statements in special leave petitions
- what counsel argued at admission stage is not decisive for revocation if material misstatements exist
- special leave may be revoked even if misstatements were copied from High Court appeal grounds
- material misstatements are serious infirmity warranting revocation and dismissal with costs.
