Vimal Jindal v. Surender Singh Dhillon & Others

-2-

-3-

-4-

-5-

-6-

-7-

-8-

-9-

-10-

-11-

-12-

-13-

-14-

-15-

-16-

-17-

-18-

-19-

-2017.

-21- "So far as the argument of the counsel for the respondent qua concealment of fact on the part of the petitioner is concerned, even that argument deserved to be rejected. Our system of adjudication being of adversarial adjudication, the parties are entitled to have even the alternative pleas. The adversarial system assumes that the best way to get to the truth of a matter is through a competitive process involving assertions and counterassertions, so as to determine the correctness of the facts and decide the claims in accordance with law. Our system also does not have dual and parallel stream of Court, like the Chancery Courts and the Common Law Courts; as it once prevailed in the Britain. Denial of relief to a suitor in Courts' discretion is concept of Equity Courts, and not of the Court of law.

We have 'Rule of Law' as the basic feature of our Constitution. Hence, we have only Courts of Law. Before a Court of law, if a suitor has availed a legal remedy to claim a legal right and has proved the claim as per the law of evidence to the satisfaction of the Court; then he cannot be denied the relief only because, perceivably, he has not disclosed something, which Court thinks he should have. There is no such discretion available to the Courts of law in exercise of their legal jurisdiction. However, our system is not totally bereft of the equity jurisdiction; as well. But in our system, equity is applicable only to the extent the same is embodied in the statutory law. There are some equity statutes in India, like, The Specific Relief Act, 1963.

-22metaphorical expression, is known as 'coming to the Court with clean hands'. However, deviation from this principle, does not, always bring the consequences of inviting adverse orders from the Court. The consequences of the deviation from this principle vary from statute to statute, and even within the same statute qua various reliefs. For example, under some statutory provisions, parties are required to come to Court with clean hands, generally. Under some other statutes, they are expected to come with clean hands specifically qua some aspects but without any consequences for default. Whereas, under some statutes; or for some of relief under the same statute, adverse consequences, including denial of relief is prescribed.

Under the Specific Relief Act; for other relief, conduct of the party, though is expected to be honestly equitable, yet is not prescribed to be a ground for denial of relief. Rather, qua relief of Specific performance, the conduct of plaintiff is not made available as a defence to the defendant under Section 9, nor the Court is authorized to deny relief to plaintiff on this ground. But under Section 41, the Court is authorized not to grant relief of 'injunction' when the conduct of plaintiff is not clean. Hence, the discretion of Court to deny relief on the ground of party not coming to the Court with clean hands is not of any general application. Rather, it is by way of only exception, and only when specifically provided for in a statute.

If there is no provision in the concerned statute, then it cannot be read inbuilt in the general or inherent power of the Court of law. Doing so would negate the 'Rule of Law'." 18.

Under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as well, there is a provision requiring the landlord and tenant, both, to disclose certain aspect honestly, however, consequence of deviation from such honest disclosures is not prescribed to be the authorization for the

-23Court to deny relief to a defaulting party. Section 18 of the Punjab Act, 1995 reads as under:

"Section 18. Landlord and tenant to furnish particulars. - Every landlord and every tenant of a building of rented land shall be bound to furnish to the Controller, or any person authorised by him in that behalf, such particulars in respect of such building rented land as may be prescribed." 19.

Section 18 of the Act requires only disclosure of the correct particulars of the property involved in the petition; as prescribed; and nothing more. It does not authorize the Court to decline relief only if a party does not give all particulars correctly. Therefore, the party cannot be deprived of the legal remedy; or the right to or right in property; only because such party might have distracted from the correct facts out of fear of losing the property. Therefore, the person coming to the Court with not so clean or even soiled hands; cannot be the basis for declining the eviction to a landlord under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Rent Act, 1949.

-24-