Rent Control – Provisional Assessment of Rent – Denial of Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Tenant admitting tenancy but disputing identity of landlord – Landlady relying on registered sale deed, mutation, electricity bills and income tax returns – Tenant failing to produce any documentary evidence of alleged alternative landlords – Held: Mere denial of relationship does not bar Rent Controller from assessing provisional rent where tenancy and possession are admitted [Paras 11–15].

Rent Control – Non-Payment of Provisionally Assessed Rent – Consequences – Once provisional rent assessed and tenant fails to deposit the same, nothing further survives for adjudication – Rent Controller bound to pass ejectment order – Non-framing of issues or absence of evidence immaterial in such situation – Eviction upheld [Paras 16–20].

Rent Control Proceedings – Denial of Title vs. Denial of Tenancy – Distinction – Tenant not disputing status as tenant but only disputing landlady’s title – Obligation to deposit rent or use and occupation charges continues – Tenant cannot “holiday from payment” merely by raising title dispute – Principle reaffirmed [Paras 17–18].

Evidence – Ownership of Landlady – Registered sale deed of 1989 supported by mutation entries, electricity connection and income tax returns showing rental income – Subsequent declaratory suit filed by cousins decades later held inconsequential – Wills allegedly disinheriting landlady held irrelevant to property exclusively owned by her [Paras 12–14, 22].

Precedents – Applicability – Judgments relied upon by tenant distinguished – Cases where tenancy itself denied or ownership clouded factually distinguishable – Binding precedents mandate eviction on failure to deposit provisional rent – Coordinate Bench and Supreme Court rulings followed [Paras 21–23].

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Orders of Rent Controller dated 15.04.2025 and Appellate Authority dated 28.05.2025 affirmed – Ejectment of tenants upheld.

Service Law – Lecturers in Government Polytechnics – Career Advancement Scheme – Academic Grade Pay (AGP) – Petitioners appointed as Lecturers between 1989–1999 and promoted to Selection Grade with AGP ₹9,000 – Junior Lecturers possessing Ph.D. granted AGP ₹10,000 – Petitioners challenged prescription of Ph.D. qualification as discriminatory – Held: No vested right to higher AGP in absence of prescribed qualification [Paras 3–5, 23–25].

Academic Policy – Prescription of Qualifications – Role of AICTE – AICTE, a statutory expert body under the AICTE Act, empowered to prescribe qualifications, service conditions and pay structures – Introduction of Ph.D. requirement for AGP ₹10,000 under Clarification dated 04.01.2016 held within statutory competence – Courts must defer to expert bodies in academic matters unless decision shown to be arbitrary or mala fide [Paras 7–10, 17–21].

Equality Clause – Articles 14 & 16 – Reasonable Classification – Classification between Ph.D. and non-Ph.D. Lecturers for grant of higher AGP based on higher academic attainment – Classification held intelligible and having rational nexus with object of improving academic standards and incentivising research – No violation of Articles 14 or 16 established [Paras 18–23].

Career Advancement – Incentive for Higher Qualification – Prescription of Ph.D. qualification intended to encourage faculty to acquire higher academic credentials – Policy decision aimed at enhancing quality of technical education – Such differentiation permissible in service jurisprudence [Paras 19–21].

Judicial Review – Limits in Academic and Policy Matters – Courts not equipped to substitute their views for those of statutory expert bodies on academic standards – Interference warranted only if decision is patently arbitrary, irrational or illegal – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents emphasising restraint in judicial review [Paras 17, 20–21].

Clarification vs. Amendment – Retrospective Effect – AICTE Clarification dated 04.01.2016 held to operate prospectively in governing eligibility for higher AGP – Does not divest any vested or accrued right of Petitioners – Distinction from cases involving retrospective alteration of service conditions [Paras 22–23].

Tribunal Orders – Validity – Central Administrative Tribunal correctly applied statutory framework and principles governing academic policy – Impugned orders dismissing Original Applications upheld – No perversity or illegality found [Paras 26–27].

Decision – Writ petitions dismissed – Prescription of Ph.D. qualification for grant of AGP ₹10,000 upheld as valid – No interference warranted with AICTE Regulations or Tribunal’s orders – Pending applications dismissed [Paras 27–28].

Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Failure to file written statement within 90 days – Lethargy and negligence – Personal hardship not “exceptional circumstance” – Striking off defence upheld – Article 227 interference declined.

Civil Procedure – Written Statement – Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Striking Off Defence – Defendant failed to file written statement despite appearance, repeated opportunities and imposition of costs – Delay extended far beyond statutory period of 30 days and outer limit of 90 days – Held: Order VIII Rule 1 CPC mandates timely filing; prolonged inaction amounts to lethargy and wilful negligence justifying striking off defence [Paras 5–6].

Exceptional Circumstances – Meaning and Scope – Plea of personal distress due to death of son and alleged lapse of counsel raised to justify delay – Held: Such grounds, without substantiating circumstances showing impossibility to act, do not constitute “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC [Paras 3, 6].

Conduct of Litigant – Lethargy Not to Be Encouraged – Defendant remained inactive for nearly 1½ years after appearance – Courts not required to come to aid of negligent litigants who abuse procedural indulgence – Procedural discipline essential for expeditious justice [Para 6].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – High Court will not interfere with discretionary orders of Trial Court unless perversity or jurisdictional error shown – Trial Court exercised discretion judiciously and recorded cogent reasons – No ground for interference made out [Paras 4, 6].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed – Order dated 15.10.2025 striking off defence upheld – Petition found meritless.

Family Law – DNA Test – Adultery – Divorce Proceedings – Direction for DNA Test – Legitimacy of Child – Presumption under Section 112 Evidence Act – Wife challenged Family Court order permitting DNA test of child to determine paternity – Husband sought DNA test not to dispute legitimacy but to prove adultery – Held: Where adultery is pleaded with specific averments of non-access, DNA test may be directed in appropriate cases – Presumption under Section 112 not absolute in such circumstances [Paras 6, 11–13].

Evidence Act – Section 112 – Presumption of Legitimacy – Scope – Presumption can be rebutted only by proof of non-access – Non-access implies impossibility and not mere difficulty of access – In present case, pleadings disclosed prima facie non-access at time of conception – Family Court justified in permitting DNA test [Paras 8, 11–12].

DNA Test – Right to Privacy vs. Administration of Justice – Courts must avoid DNA testing as routine – However, where DNA test is only effective means to establish adultery and no declaration of illegitimacy is sought, privacy concerns yield to truth-finding – Reliance placed on Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy [Paras 6–7, 9–10].

Adultery – Proof – Evidentiary Necessity – Husband in Indian Army pleaded specific facts regarding short visit, immediate disclosure of pregnancy, and premature delivery inconsistent with biological possibility – DNA test held to be most legitimate and scientific method to establish or rebut allegation of adultery [Paras 12–13].

Distinction – Legitimacy vs. Infidelity – DNA Test – Judgments in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia, Ivan Rathinam and R. Rajendran distinguished – Held: Those cases involved direct challenge to legitimacy or different factual matrices – Dipanwita Roy applies where DNA test is incidental to adjudication of adultery [Paras 7–10].

Refusal to Undergo DNA Test – Adverse Inference – If wife refuses to comply with DNA testing, Family Court entitled to draw adverse presumption under Section 114(h) Evidence Act or corresponding provisions of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 [Para 14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order of Family Court directing DNA test upheld – Family Court at liberty to draw adverse inference if petitioner refuses DNA test [Paras 13–14].

SARFAESI Act – Appeal under Section 18 – Pre-deposit Requirement – Borrower or Guarantor – Petitioner, a tenant and allottee under Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement, challenged DRAT order insisting on deposit of 40% of outstanding loan amount – Held: Proviso to Section 18 mandating pre-deposit applies only to borrower or guarantor and not to any other aggrieved person – DRAT erred in imposing pre-deposit condition [Paras 4, 7, 11, 13].

Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal – Jurisdictional Error – Self-operating Clause – Appeal dismissed for non-deposit pursuant to DRAT order – Since pre-deposit condition itself was unsustainable in law, rejection of appeal on that basis held illegal – Appeal liable to be revived [Paras 3, 14].

Tenant’s Rights – Redevelopment – Competing Claims to Flat – Petitioner tenant alleged fraud by developer by allotting same flat to him under PAAA and simultaneously selling it to borrowers who availed loan – Held: Such disputed questions to be examined on merits by DRT/DRAT – Not relevant for deciding limited issue of pre-deposit [Paras 8–10, 12].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Division Bench of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court – Reliance placed on Anchor Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank, Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Prudent ARC Ltd., and Delhi High Court judgments – Law well settled that pre-deposit under Section 18 cannot be insisted upon from a non-borrower, non-guarantor appellant [Paras 4–7, 13].

Writ Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Question of Law – Since issue of applicability of pre-deposit was no longer res integra, writ petition entertained and allowed – DRAT directed to hear appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 26.06.2025 passed by DRAT, Mumbai quashed and set aside – Appeal restored and revived – DRAT directed to consider appeal and interim application on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit – Interim application to be decided expeditiously.

Bail – UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Prima Facie True Test – At the stage of bail, Court is required to assess material on broad probabilities and not conduct a detailed trial – Documents and investigation material to be taken as they are, without testing admissibility or reliability – Held: Accusation against the appellant found prima facie true on cumulative assessment of material [Paras 17–18].

Criminal Conspiracy – Proof – Circumstantial Evidence – Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence – Meeting of minds can be inferred from conduct, communications, and surrounding circumstances – Absence from some meetings not decisive – Held: Appellant’s conduct before and after the incident indicates participation in conspiracy [Paras 14–15.1].

Social Media Messages – Instigation – Intention – Appellant circulated screenshot of deceased’s post with provocative and inflammatory message after altering mobile number to reveal identity – Message capable of provoking violence in communally sensitive atmosphere – Relevant under Section 14 Evidence Act to infer intention and state of mind – Held: Prima facie instigation and motive established [Paras 6–10].

Terrorist Act – UAPA – Formation of Terrorist Gang – Material indicates organised plan to avenge perceived insult to faith and to strike terror in society – Killing of deceased as part of wider design – Held: Prima facie applicability of Sections 16, 18 and 20 UAPA [Paras 12–13, 18].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary Value – Confession of co-accused not substantive evidence by itself – However, when supported by independent circumstantial material, it can lend corroboration – Held: Even dehors extra-judicial confessions, sufficient prima facie material exists against appellant [Paras 15–17].

Bail – Length of Custody – Article 21 – Though prolonged incarceration is a relevant factor, it cannot override statutory embargo under UAPA when accusations are prima facie true and evidence is of sufficient probative value – Held: Continued detention justified in view of gravity and nature of offence [Paras 18–18.1].

Precedents – Applicability – Vernon v. State of Maharashtra and Pancho v. State of Haryana distinguished on facts – Case governed by principles laid down in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Union of India v. Barakathullah – Held: Bail rightly denied [Paras 16–17.3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of Special Judge rejecting bail confirmed – Court holds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that accusations against the appellant are prima facie true – Statutory bar under UAPA attracted – No case for grant of bail made out.

Specific Performance – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court reiterated that interference in second appeal is permissible only when findings of the First Appellate Court are perverse, based on no evidence, inadmissible evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law – Reappreciation of evidence not permissible [Paras 16, 31].

Specific Performance of Contract – Registered Possessory Agreement of Sale – Agreement of sale dated 09.03.1979 duly registered – Entire sale consideration paid and possession delivered on date of agreement – Certified copy admissible where original lost in cyclone – Execution of agreement not disputed by executant’s legal representatives – Decree for specific performance upheld [Paras 19, 22, 24].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff proved oral demand for execution of sale deed during vendor’s lifetime and thereafter from legal representatives – Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte and did not dispute readiness and willingness – Requirement of notice held satisfied on facts [Paras 18–21].

Locus Standi – Third Party to Contract – Defendant No.3 not a party to the agreement of sale – Held, such defendant has no locus to challenge decree of specific performance granted against vendors’ legal representatives – Decree having attained finality as defendants 1 and 2 did not appeal [Paras 17, 22, 30].

Possession – Permissive Possession vs. Tenancy – Defendant No.3 claimed tenancy under original owner but failed to establish tenancy by evidence – Plaintiff proved permissive occupation after borrowing of money – Permissive possessor liable to vacate upon termination of permission [Paras 25, 29, 30].

Evidence – Conduct of Parties – Adverse Inference – Legal representatives of executant neither contested nor entered witness box – Presumption drawn against denial of execution and obligation to execute sale deed [Paras 20, 21].

Eviction – Consequential Relief – Once plaintiff held entitled to specific performance and execution of sale deed, permissive occupant/defendant No.3 liable to be evicted from suit schedule property [Paras 30].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirmed – No substantial question of law involved – Parties directed to bear their own costs

Order 39 CPC – Non-compliance with Rule 3 – Subsequent ex parte injunction impermissible – Refusal to restore electricity supply upheld – Trial Court directed to decide injunction application expeditiously.

Civil Procedure – Temporary Injunction – Order 39 Rule 3 CPC – Effect of Non-Compliance – Petitioners earlier granted ex parte injunction for restoration of electricity supply but failed to comply with mandatory requirements of Rule 3 – Interim injunction consequently vacated – Subsequent application seeking similar ex parte relief filed – Held: Grant of fresh ex parte injunction would nullify statutory mandate of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC – Trial Court justified in declining ex parte relief [Paras 3, 6].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – High Court does not act as an appellate court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 – Interference warranted only where order suffers from patent illegality or perversity – Order refusing ex parte injunction found to be reasoned and in consonance with procedural law – No ground for interference made out [Paras 4, 6].

Tenant’s Right – Electricity Supply – Business Necessity – Petitioners running cold storage business in tenanted premises – Electricity supply essential for carrying on trade – Though ex parte injunction declined, necessity of early adjudication on merits recognised – Held: Trial Court must decide injunction application expeditiously after hearing both parties [Para 6].

Procedural Balance – Natural Justice – While denying immediate interim relief, Court ensured balance by directing time-bound disposal of pending injunction application – Fair opportunity to both sides preserved – Procedural safeguards upheld [Paras 6–7].

Decision: Civil revision disposed of – No interference with impugned order – Trial Court directed to decide pending injunction application on merits after hearing both parties within 15 days – All pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Civil Law - Order V Rule 17 CPC – Defective service by affixation – Ex parte proceedings unsustainable – Defendant permitted to join proceedings must be allowed to file written statement under Order IX Rule 7 CPC – Article 227 interference warranted.

Civil Procedure – Service of Summons – Affixation – Order V Rule 17 CPC – Defendant proceeded ex parte solely on basis of report of affixation – Process Server reported that defendant was not present, no family member accepted summons and Chowkidar was absent – Affixation not witnessed by any respectable person – No prior direction of Court to adopt affixation – Held: Procedure for service not duly complied with; ex parte proceedings initiated in a mechanical manner and unsustainable [Paras 8–9].

Duty of Court – Personal Service – Avoidance of Hasty Ex Parte Proceedings – Court obliged to ensure proper personal service of summons – In case defendant not found, summons should ordinarily be sent through registered post simultaneously – Resort to affixation and ex parte proceedings as first measure deprecated – Trial Court erred in adopting shortcut method [Paras 9–10].

Order IX Rule 7 CPC – Setting Aside Ex Parte Proceedings – Right to File Written Statement – Defendant allowed to join proceedings after ex parte order – However, no opportunity granted to file written statement – Held: Mere permission to join proceedings is illusory and ineffective – Without written statement, defendant cannot set up defence or lead evidence – Opportunity to file written statement is integral to fair trial [Para 10].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Correction of Procedural Illegality – High Court empowered to interfere where procedural irregularity causes grave prejudice – Impugned order permitting defendant only to join proceedings, without allowing written statement, held perverse and illegal – Interference warranted [Paras 9–10].

Delay Allegation – Not a Ground to Deny Fair Opportunity – Objection that suit pending for several years rejected – Delay cannot override requirement of proper service and meaningful right to defence [Para 7, 10].

Decision: CR-9444-2025 allowed – Impugned order dated 28.11.2025 set aside – Defendant to be given opportunity to file written statement – CR-399-2026 dismissed – Copy of order to be placed on connected file.