Order
1. The civil appeal is liable to be dismissed upholding the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord. The appellant is the tenant. Eviction proceedings were taken against him by the landlord. The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant. At the same time it granted him time to vacate till December 31, 1984 subject to his furnishing an undertaking in terms indicated by it, before the trial court, within one month from the date of the order. It was also stated that if no such undertaking is furnished within the time specified or if any of the terms of the undertaking is contravened by the defendant, he shall be liable to be evicted forthwith. In accordance with the said order, the appellant furnished an undertaking on October 10, 1984, a copy of which is filed as Annexure ‘C’ of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-landlord in this Court. In this undertaking, the appellant-tenant while undertaking to abide by the order granted by the High Court, has no doubt, made the said undertaking subject to any order of the Supreme Court. This rider was not provided in the order of the High Court; it was a unilateral addition made by the appellant. Having furnished the said undertaking of October 10, 1984, he filed the present special leave petition in this Court on that very day, viz., on October 10, 1984. In the special leave petition, a positive statement was made that “the petitioner has not filed any undertaking as the petitioner is aggrieved with the judgment of the High Court …”.
2. Firstly, it may be seen that the statement in the special leave petition that the tenant-appellant has not filed any undertaking is not correct inasmuch as he did file such an undertaking in the High Court, no doubt on that very day. Even so, it was an incorrect statement. Secondly — and more important — his SLP is not maintainable in view of the undertaking furnished by him in the High Court. It has been held by this Court in R.N Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir . (1992) 4 SCC 683 following three earlier decisions of this Court that once the tenant files such an undertaking he cannot be permitted to assail the eviction order by filing a special leave petition in this Court. It has also been held that even if the undertaking says that it was subject to his right to file an appeal before the Supreme Court against the order of eviction, it makes no difference that even in such a case he is precluded from filing such a special leave petition. The said decisions are binding upon us. The grant of special leave does not cure the aforesaid infirmities. Indeed, all the three decisions referred to and followed in R.N Gosain (1992) 4 SCC 683 were civil appeals and yet the same principle was applied.
3. For the above reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Comments