The landlord has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a direction to the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana to decide the Rent Appeal titled as `Neeraj Malhotra Vs. Sandeep Ghai' filed by the tenant against the order of ejectment dated 12.06.2010, expeditiously much-less in a time frame.

For the view I am taking, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondent as it would unnecessarily delay the matter and the respondent is not going to be prejudiced in any manner.

In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] for eviction of the tenant from property bearing No.46-K (Municipal No.B.XX.4725), Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent and personal necessity. The learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 12.06.2010, allowed the eviction petition on the ground of personal necessity and directed the tenant to hand over its vacant possession CR-496-2012 (O&M) [2] :::::::

to the landlord till 15.08.2010. Thereafter, two appeals are filed under Section 15 of the Act; one by the tenant against the order of eviction dated 12.06.2010 and the other by the landlord against the finding on the issue of non-payment of arrears of rent.

The appeal by the tenant was filed on 19.07.2010. The zimni orders passed by the learned Appellate Authority from 19.07.2010 to 14.12.2010 in the said appeal are reproduced as under:

"Present: Sh. S.Soni, Adv. for appellant.

****** Appeal received by entrustment. Be regd. There are arguable points in the appeal. Same is admitted for hearing. Heard. Now notice of appeal be issued to respondent and his counsel who was appearing in trial court for 24.08.2010. Record be also called for that date.

Sd/-

JS Chohan, AA/19.7.2010" "Present: Sh. Stevon Soni, Advocate for appellant.

****** File taken up today as 24.08.2010 was declared holiday. Sh. PK Garg, Advocate appeared for respondent. Record also received. Adjourned for filing of power of attorney by counsel for respondent and also for arguments on 27.09.2010..

Sd/-

JS Chohan, AA/25.8.2010"

"Present: Sh. Stevon, Adv. for appellant.

Sh. PK Garg, Advocate for respondent.

******* On request, adjourned for arguments on 5.10.2010.

Sd/-

JS Chohan, ADJ/27.9.2010"

"Present: Proxy Counsel for parties.

Adjourned for arguments on 12.10.2010.

Sd/-

JS Chohan, ADJ/5.10.10"

"Present: Sh. S. Soni, Adv. for appellant.

Sh. PK Garg, Adv. for respondent.

******* On request, adjourned for arguments on 15.11.2010.

Sd/-

JS Chohan, ADJ/12.10.2010"

"Present: Sh. S. Soni, Adv. for the appellant.

Sh. PK Garg, Adv. for respondent.

******* On request, adjourned for arguments on 14.12.2010.

Sd/-

JS Chohan, ADJ/15.11.10"

"Present: Sh. S. Soni, Adv. for the appellant.

Sh. PK Garg, Advocate for respondent.

******* On request, case is adjourned for 06.01.2011 for arguments.

Sd/-

JS Chohan, ADJ/14.12.2010"

From 06.01.2011 to 31.01.2011, the case was adjourned without any arguments. The zimni orders of this period are reproduced as under:

"Present: Sh. Stevon Soni, Adv. for appellant.

Sh. PK Garg, Advocate for respondent.

******* On request, adjourned for arguments on 18.1.2011.

Sd/-

JS Chohan, ADJ/06.01.2011"

"Present: Sh. Stevon Soni, Ad. for appellant.

Sh. PK Garg, Advocate for respondent.

******* On request, adjourned for arguments on 31.1.2011.

Sd/-

JS Chohan, ADJ/18.1.2011"

"Present: Sh. VS Nahar, Adv. for appellant.

Sh. PK Garg, Advocate for respondents ******* Sh. VS Nahar, Advocate, filed POA on behalf of appellant. On his request, adjourned for arguments on 7.2.2011.

Sd/-

JS Chohan, ADJ/31.1.2011"

When the case was adjourned on 31.01.2011 to 07.02.2011 for arguments, the tenant moved an application on 28.01.2011 for transfer of the case from the Court of Shri J.S.Chohan, Additional District Judge to any other Court. In this application, the landlord had appeared before the District Judge and on 01.02.2011, the case was adjourned for filing reply to the said application for 21.02.2011. In the meantime, on 07.02.2011, the learned Appellate Authority passed the following order:

Sh. PK Garg, Advocate for respondent.

******* The appellant has filed an application for transfer of the present case. To come up on 22.02.2011. Awaiting order of Ld. District Judge, Ludhiana.

Sd/-

JS Chohan, ADJ/07.2.2011"

Since no order was received from the learned District Judge, Ludhiana on 22.02.2011, therefore, the case was adjourned by the Appellate Authority to 07.03.2011. The following order was passed on 22.02.2011:

"Present: Sh. V.S.Nahar, Adv. for appellant.

Sh. PK Garg, Advocate for respondent.

******* No order from Ld. District & Sessions Judge received. It be awaited. To come up on 07.03.2011.

Sd/-

JS Chohan, AA/22.2.2011"

On 07.03.2011, the matter was not listed for arguments as the tenant had moved an application for adjournment and the matter was posted for 21.03.2011. On 07.03.2011, the following order was passed by the Appellate Authority:

"Present: Sh. V.S.Nahar, Adv. for appellant.

Sh. PK Garg, Advocate for respondent.

******* A written request has been filed by Stevon Soni, Adv. for adjournment of the case. On the written request, case is adjourned to 07.04.2011 for arguments.

Sd/-

Paramjeet Singh, ADJ/21.3.2011"

On 07.04.2011, the following order was passed by the Appellate Authority:

"Present: Sh. V.S. Nahar, Adv. for appellant.

Sh. PK Garg, Adv. for respondent.

******* Case is listed for arguments but I am busy in hearing arguments in a time bound case titled as ` United India V/s MHF Ind. To come upon 19.04.2011 for arguments.

Sd/-

Paramjeet Singh/ADJ/7.4.2011"

On 19.04.2011, the following order was passed by the Appellate Authority:

"Present: Sh. VS Nahar, Adv. for appellant Sh. PK Garg, Adv. for respondent.

******* Not listed for arguments. Adjourned for arguments on 10.05.2011.

Sd/-

Paramjeet Singh, AA/19.4.2011"

Thereafter, the following orders were passed by the learned Appellate Authority:

"Present: Sh. Stevon Soni, Adv. for appellant Sh. PK Garg, Advocate for respondent ******* Arguments heard in parts. Adjourned for remaining arguments on 11.5.2011.

Sd/-

Paramjeet Singh, ADJ/ASJ/10.5.2011"

"Present: Sh. Stevon Soni, Adv. for appellant Sh. PK Garg, Advocate for respondent ******* Arguments heard in parts. Adjourned CR-496-2012 (O&M) [7] :::::::

for remaining arguments on 12.5.2011.

Sd/-

Paramjeet Singh, ADJ/ASJ/11.5.2011"

"Present: Sh. Stevon Soni, Adv. for appellant Sh. PK Garg, Advocate for respondent ******* Arguments heard in parts. Adjourned for remaining arguments on 13.5.2011.

Sd/-

Paramjeet Singh, ADJ/ASJ/12.5.2011"

"Present: Sh. Stevon Soni, Adv. for appellant Sh. PK Garg, Advocate for respondent ******* On request, adjourned for remaining arguments on 19.5.2011.

Sd/-

Paramjeet Singh, ADJ/ASJ/13.5.2011"

"Present: Sh. Stevon Soni, Adv. for appellant Sh. PK Garg, Advocate for respondent ******* Arguments partly heard. Adjourned to 31.05.2011 for remaining arguments.

Sd/-

ADJ/19.5.2011"

In the meantime, the case was transferred to some other Presiding Officer. Hence, on 20.07.2011, the following order was passed by the Appellate Authority:

"Present: Sh. Stevon Soni, Adv. for appellant.

Sh. P.K.Garg, Adv. for respondent.

registered. Now to come up on 2.9.2011 with CR-496-2012 (O&M) [8] :::::::

connected appeal.

Sd/-

AS Virk, ADJ/20.7.2011"

Thereafter, the following orders were passed by the Appellate Authority:

"Present: Counsel for the parties.

******* Now to come upon 29.9.2011 along with connected appeal.

Sd/-

AA/2.9.11"

"Present: Counsel for the parties.

******* Now to come upon 24.10.2011.

Sd/-

AA/29.9.11"

"Present: Counsel for the parties.

Record not received. Be summoned for 25.1.2012."

Sd/-

AA/6.12.2011"

On 25.01.2012, the following order was passed by the Appellate Authority:

In view of the written request made by counsel for appellant, adjourned to 06.03.2012 for arguments.

Sd/-

AA/25.1.12"

The grievance of the petitioner, who happens to be the landlord, is that though the appeal was filed by the tenant on 19.07.2010 yet even after expiry of more than 1-½ years, it has not been decided due to repeated adjournments.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is confronted with the orders dated 27.09.2010, 12.10.2010, 15.11.2010, 14.12.2010, 06.01.2011 and 18.01.2011 wherein it is recorded "on request, adjourned" and since the learned counsel for the petitioner has been taking dates, therefore, he cannot raise a grouse of delay. In this regard, he has submitted that all the adjournments have been taken by the tenant as he is to gain by delaying the proceedings.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of this case.

It is not the solitary case which has been filed by the landlord invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, rather it has become a regular feature that such type of cases are being filed in which these type of directions are being sought by taking advantage of such type of zimni orders.

In this case, it is evident that the aforesaid zimni orders do not disclose as to which party has been seeking adjournments. It is pertinent to mention that in the orders 27.09.2010, 12.10.2010, 15.11.2010, 14.12.2010, 06.01.2011 and 18.01.2011, it is not mentioned as to who was the advocate who had appeared for the parties as all that has been mentioned is "counsel for the parties".

It is pertinent to mention that the importance of recording proper zimni orders can be ascertained from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another, CR-496-2012 (O&M) [ 10 ] :::::::

AIR 1982 SC 1249. In that case, a complaint was filed against the Chief Minister of Maharashtra charging him with offences punishable under Sections 161, 185 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complaint was not entertained by the Magistrate as it was not maintainable without sanction under Section 6 of latter Act. The complainant preferred a revision before the High Court purported to be one under Sections 407 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. During the pendency of revision, the Chief Minister resigned. While dismissing the revision, the High Court noticed that an application had been made to the Governor of the State for grant of requisite sanction and observed that the application should not be decided by the Law Minister or any other Minister but as it deserves to be decided by the Governor in his individual discretion. This observation was made in consequence of an express concession made by the Government Counsel. In special leave petition, the Government counsel denied that he had made any concession and that the Supreme Court may peruse the written submissions made by the counsel before the High Court. In this background, it was held by the Supreme Court that the Judges' record was conclusive. Neither lawyer nor litigant may claim to contradict it, except before the Judge himself and nowhere else. The court could not launch an inquiry as to what had transpired in the High Court. The Court is bound to accept the statement of the judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. It cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement CR-496-2012 (O&M) [ 11 ] :::::::

that had been made in error. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment.

Thus, the recording of zimni orders by the learned Presiding Officers is of great importance as it reflects the proceedings which transpire during the course of hearing. The learned Presiding Officers are required to be highly sensitive about recording of the zimni orders lest it create a new type of litigation in the higher Court to deal with as has happened in this present case where the petitioner has denied to have taken any date which have been granted by the Court below "on request" without disclosing as to who had made the request for the purpose of adjournment.

In the recent past, a case came up before this Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. and another's case (supra) in which the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh was challenged by which defence of the defendants was struck off for non-payment of costs as well as for non-filing of the written statement. It was a suit filed by the Bank seeking a declaration and also praying for recovery. In that suit, the attendance of the advocate was not properly marked and was only mentioned as "counsel for the plaintiff". It was argued before this Court that there were 55 cases listed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh in which case at item No.21 was CS/1576/2010 titled as `M/s. Indian Yarn Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank Limited' and at item No.47 was CS/3116/2009 titled as `Ohm Forex Services Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. and another' . It was argued that counsel for the bank Mr. Varinder Arora was very much present in the Court but he was informed by the Reader in respect of the case listed at item No.47 titled as `Ohm Forex Services Ltd. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. and another' that Mr. Arun Dogra, Advocate had already put in appearance and filed his power of attorney. Thereafter, he came back to his chamber and attended to his other work but later on he came to know that Mr. Arun Dogra, Advocate had CR-496-2012 (O&M) [ 12 ] :::::::

appeared in some other case of ICICI Bank listed in the same Court on that date and the Reader had erroneously assumed that he had appeared in the case in which Mr. Varinder Arora had to appear. He had also averred that he immediately mentioned to the learned Court and requested that the order of striking out the defence may be recalled as it has been inadvertently passed but that prayer was not accepted. In this background, it was found by the Court that the whole confusion had arisen only because of the manner in which the presence was recorded by the Reader of the Court as the opening line of the order was, "Present:- Counsel for the parties". It was also observed in the order that generally a trend has developed in which the presence is recorded as "counsel for the parties" or "As above". Had the Reader of the Court recorded the name of the counsel for the parties specifically, there would not have been any confusion and this kind of litigation could have been easily curtailed.

Hence, the time has again come when a direction is required to be issued to the learned Presiding Officers of all the subordinate Courts to clearly record not only the names of the counsel for the parties who appear before it on each and every date of hearing but also the party who ask for adjournment. The learned Presiding Officer should also mention their full name in the zimni order.

The learned Presiding Officers should strive for curtailing unnecessary litigation which consumes lot of time not only of the litigants but also of the Courts which can be used for the purpose of disposal of the other long awaited cases.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeals filed by both the landlord and the tenant, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.