Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, May 29: High Court today observed that courts cannot be converted into a wrestling field, for trial of tricks where the Court has to act as an empire when a party take different stand in a court to defeat the efforts of the other party and said stand must be curbed down effectively by the courts.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul while dismissing the appeal of the tenant and setting aside the trial court judgment by directing to vacate the tenancy premises and hand it over to landlord recorded that the courts must effectively intervene and nip the evil of perjury and false statements in bud.
“Where a tenant takes different stand in different courts to defeat the effort of landlord to get the premises vacated at the time of need such an effort must be curbed down by the courts effectively by binding him with his earlier statement in respect of the same premises and his plea of raising a dispute in respect of the rent admitted by him should not be heard and entertained”, Justice Koul emphasized on trial courts.
Justice Koul said that the courts have ruled that the tenants cannot dictate upon landlord’s personal need of the tenanted premises while making meticulous comparison and assessment of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of landlord and tenant.
Court set aside the trial court judgment decree whereby partial eviction from tenancy premises was directed in favour of landlord and allowed the cross appeal landlord by directing the tenant to vacate the shop, and the room in first floor within a period of two months from the date of pronouncement of the judgement and vacant possession shall be handed over by them to landlord.
The tenant in his written statement before the Trial Court has in clear cut terms admitted that he executed rent deed with the landlord and by this, court said, he has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant. He has also admitted that he received notices from the landlord and replied to them.
“Once that being the position, the tenant cannot be permitted to both approbate and reprobate. On one hand he admits relationship of landlord and tenant, and on other hand he claims to be owner of the same property with respect whereof he has executed rent deed in favour of landlord”, Justice Koul said.
Justice Koul said, a person cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate and no party can take stand as per convenience and a party cannot be allowed to withdraw from the admissions made by it in the pleadings in respect of the case.
If the parties, court added, are allowed to approbate and reprobate at their sweet will and convenience and take the Courts for a ride, the whole judicial system shall fail. The Courts must effectively check such parties, who take inconsistent stands, according to their convenience.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel