C.R.No.1281 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.1281 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.9.2011 Mukesh Puri ...Petitioner vs Gurmit Singh ....Respondent CORAM: MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Bagga, Advocate, for the respondent. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned orders of eviction on the ground of personal necessity and ceased to occupy the demised premises. Noticing the contentions as raised before this Court on 16.3.2011, this Court had passed the following order:- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the opinion framed by the learned Appellate Aauthority to order the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of cease to occupy is on the basis that the landlord himself did not appear in the witness box to show that the business premises is still running and has relied upon the statement of the landlord- witnesses without appreciating the statement of the tenants- witnesses, who have categorically stated that in the absence of the tenant the premises is still open and has never been closed. In this regard, he relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of “Balwant Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh and anr.” 1971 C.R.No.1281 of 2011 2 PLR 1032. Notice of motion for 28.3.2011 Dasti only”. On 29.8.2011 further the following order was passed by this Court:- The respondent filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on various grounds. Vide order dated 8.1.2001, the Rent Controller, Nakodar allowed the petition on the ground that the demised premises are required by the respondent- landlord for his bona fide necessity as well as on the ground that the petitioner-tenant has ceased to occupy the same for a continuous period of more than four months, preceding the filing of the petition. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, Nakodar, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 9.12.2010. The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the aforesaid impugned orders by one Gagan Puri claiming himself as an attorney of tenant-Mukesh Puri. A copy of the said power of attorney dated 18.5.2006 executed in favour of Gagan Puri, which is in Punjabi language, is on record of this revision petition. A perusal of this document shows that the said attorney has been executed by the tenant in favour of Gagan Puri only for the purpose of pursuing the case. The affidavit placed on record in support of the said application has been duly sworn by the aforesaid Gagan Puri wherein he has verified the grounds of revision and the facts as mentioned therein. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that in fact, the petitioner-tenant has gone out of the country for the last many years and has not come back to the country. On 19.8.2011, the petitioner-tenant was asked to be present in Court. Today. Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has very fairly stated that Mukesh Puri- tenant-petitioner is not in India and is residing in Germany. However, he cannot say about the facts regarding previous and C.R.No.1281 of 2011 3 future visits to India as Sh. Gagan Puri has not informed him in this regard. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the petitioner has never ceased to occupy the shop in dispute as the shop was being run by the petitioner through his nephew Gagan Puri. However, the written statement is silent in this regard. It seems that a false plea has been taken by the petitioner before this Court. However, before proceeding further, a show cause notice is issued to Sh. Gagan Puri s/o Sh. Shambhu Nath Puri r/o Bhida Bazar, Mata Rani Mandir Wali Gali, Shahkot, through whom this petition has been filed, to explain his conduct. List on 2.9.2011. The petitioner is directed to be present in Court on the next date of hearing It is clarified that the respondent shall not be bound by the statement made by the counsel on his behalf on 27.5.2011 and the said order is vacated.” On 2.9.2011, this Court passed the following order:- “ Gagan Puri alleged attorney of Mukesh Puri is present in Court. On the asking of the Court, he has stated that he is running a Readymade Garments shop in the name of style of Puri Garments. He has further stated that Ms.Sadhna Puri wife of Mukesh Puri also manages the said shop with him. However, he has also admitted that the income tax returns for the business of Ready-made Garments are filed under his name and Sadhna Puri is not shown as partner in the aforesaid business. From the aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that Mr.Gagan Puri has filed the instant petition prima facie on false pleas. List on 14.9.2011. In the meantime, petitioner is directed to bring upto-date arrears of rent by way of demand draft in the name of the respondent without prejudice to the rights of the parties.” Today Shri Sanjiv Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is not willing to pay the arrears C.R.No.1281 of 2011 4 of rent and has refused to comply with the order dated 2.9.2011. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner, he is not entitled to any further hearing from this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of. Ramrameshwari Devi and others v. Nirmala Devi and others, passed in Civil Appeals No.4912-4913 of 2011 decided on 4.7.2011, has observed that a person who does not come with clean hands to the Court is not entitled to any relief and is liable to be thrown out. Moreover, from the orders passed by this Court, it is clear that the petitioner Mukesh Puri is not in India and is settled abroad and in fact this litigation is being fought by Gagan Puri, the alleged attorney who otherwise is not entitled to continue on a false plea that tenant-petitioner has not ceased to occupy the demised premises as the shop was being run by him through his alleged attorney whereas, the alleged attorney has admitted before this Court that petitioner is not in India since the year 2000 and his wife is not a partner of the business which is only in his name. Even no such plea is taken in the written statement. Thus, this petition is dismissed with exemplary costs which are assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-, to be deposited with the Chandigarh Legal Services Authority within one month from today. In case, on the failure on the part of the petitioner the same shall be recovered by the said authority as arrears of land revenue. The costs be recovered either from Mukesh Puri or Gagan Puri. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge September 14, 2011 rk