Rent Control – Bonafide Requirement – Eviction of Tenant –

Plaintiffs sought eviction of defendant from the suit premises for bonafide personal need and office use – Defendant contended possession of entire ground floor, claimed misrepresentation of facts – Courts below found plaintiffs’ requirement genuine and bonafide – Defendant’s claim of occupying four blocks without evidence rejected – Eviction upheld [Paras 1-25].

Nuisance and Annoyance – Tenant’s Conduct –

Defendant obstructed plaintiffs’ entry to the suit premises – Defendant falsely claimed entire property as tenancy, though only two blocks were rented – Conduct amounted to nuisance and annoyance – Eviction justified [Paras 26-29].

Default in Rent Payment – Tenant’s Obligation –

Defendant failed to pay rent after April 2009 and did not deposit arrears upon suit summons – Ground for eviction valid under MRC Act – Non-payment established [Paras 30-31].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Eviction decree upheld – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on Petitioner-Defendant – Respondents entitled to withdraw deposited amounts with interest [Paras 32-33].

Criminal Law – Conviction Reversal – Evidence Analysis: Appeal against conviction for assault causing death under Section 304 Part II IPC – Trial court convicted appellant based on testimonies and medical evidence – High Court finds inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and lack of explanation for gaps in medical treatment – Judgment and sentence set aside [Paras 1-22].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – Contradictions: Prosecution witnesses presented conflicting testimonies regarding the circumstances of the assault and the sequence of events – Inconsistencies between medical reports and witness statements – High Court emphasizes the need for credible and consistent evidence to uphold a conviction [Paras 9-13, 15-18].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies and Gaps: Discrepancies noted between initial injury reports and autopsy findings – Lack of explanation for the victim’s whereabouts and treatment between hospital admissions – Court finds these gaps critical in raising reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case [Paras 10-11, 16].

Burden of Proof – Benefit of Doubt: Two possible views on evidence – One pointing to guilt and the other to innocence – High Court applies principle favoring the accused in case of doubt – Appellant given benefit of doubt, resulting in acquittal [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part II IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted and released from custody if not wanted in any other case [Paras 21-24].

Lok Adalat Awards – Legitimacy of Settlements – The RSRTC challenged the National Lok Adalat awards on the grounds that the counsel who signed the settlements was unauthorized. The court held that the awards, passed under the RSRTC's policy allowing reinstatement without back wages, were valid and binding. It emphasized that Lok Adalat awards have the same finality as a civil court decree under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. RSRTC's plea to invalidate the awards on technical grounds was rejected [Paras 1-25].

Estoppel Against RSRTC – The court noted that RSRTC's actions, including not challenging the panel counsel who signed the settlement and continuing to entrust him with further briefs, amounted to estoppel. RSRTC cannot disown the consent given before the Lok Adalat and must adhere to the settlement [Paras 12-15].

Finality and Binding Nature of Lok Adalat Awards – The awards passed by the Lok Adalat are final and binding as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The court reinforced that such awards should not be overturned on technicalities unless fraud or jurisdictional issues are evident [Paras 18-23].

Decision: The writ petitions filed by RSRTC against the National Lok Adalat awards were dismissed. The petitions by workmen for the implementation of the awards were allowed, with the court directing RSRTC to implement the awards within three months, failing which the workmen would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000 each [Paras 23-26].

Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 – Section 2 – Effect on Inheritance Rights – Widow remarries, loses rights in deceased husband's property – Plaintiff claimed possession through father's relationship with remarried widow – Court held remarriage divested widow of rights, plaintiff failed to prove independent title and possession – Real successors to estate not impleaded – Plaintiff's claim based on possession and alleged unproven relationship [Paras 17-24].

Civil Suit for Injunction – Requirement for Clear Title and Possession – Plaintiff must establish title and possession independently of defence weaknesses – Court observed lack of necessary parties (successors of deceased husband) – Suit dismissed due to insufficient evidence of plaintiff's claimed title and possession – Emphasis on necessity for plaintiff to succeed on own merits [Paras 25-26].

Procedure and Pleadings – Requirement of Impleading Necessary Parties – Injunction against successors in title requires their impleading – Plaintiff failed to include natural successors of deceased – Title and possession claims cannot succeed against wrong parties [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Judgment of lower appellate court set aside – Original suit dismissed – Directions for return of original documents to parties by District Court [Para 28-29].

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – NDPS Act – Petitioner sought regular bail for being implicated in a narcotics case based on the disclosure statement of co-accused without any recovery from him. The petitioner argued for bail citing prior similar bail grants and lengthy custody without trial progression.

Multiple Cases and Habitual Offender – Petitioner had numerous previous cases under the NDPS Act and other convictions under the Excise Act, establishing a pattern of habitual offenses. The court highlighted the petitioner’s extensive criminal history and reiterated the stringent bail provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which are in addition to those under Cr.P.C. [Paras 1-15].

Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail Conditions – Emphasized that bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act necessitates satisfying twin conditions: the accused has not committed the offense and is not likely to commit an offense. These conditions could not be satisfied due to the petitioner’s history of similar offenses [Paras 13-14].

Change in Circumstances – Court noted no significant change in circumstances since the last bail application was denied, reaffirming the rejection of the current bail plea [Para 14].

Decision: Petition dismissed. The court held that the petitioner’s extensive criminal record and failure to demonstrate changes in circumstances warranted rejection of bail. The prior instances of bail granted to co-accused were not seen as grounds to grant bail to the petitioner, given his habitual offender status [Paras 15].

Anticipatory Bail – Allegations of Dowry Harassment and Attempted Murder – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for offences under Sections 498-A, 307, 509, 313, 403, 409 read with 34 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Allegations included demand for dowry, misappropriation of gold, and forced abortion – Investigation revealed incidents both in India and the USA – Petitioners contended that incidents in the USA could not be prosecuted without Central Government sanction as per Section 188 CrPC – Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary due to the nature of the dispute and ongoing investigation [Paras 1-5].

Jurisdiction – Application of Section 188 CrPC – Examined applicability of Section 188 CrPC regarding prosecution of offences committed abroad – Referenced Telangana High Court's decision emphasizing requirement of Central Government sanction for such prosecution – Court found no challenge to this principle by the respondent [Paras 4].

Decision:

Anticipatory bail granted – Petitioners to be released on bail upon arrest, subject to personal bonds and sureties – Conditions imposed for marking attendance before the investigating officer and cooperation with the investigation – Emphasis on non-interference with witnesses [Para 5].

Property Law – Rights of Widow – Appellant’s rights in deceased husband’s property ceased upon remarriage – Section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 applied – Court held that remarriage caused widow to lose her rights in the deceased husband’s estate – Estate to devolve upon the next heirs of deceased husband [Paras 17-22].

Succession – Possession and Title – Plaintiff’s plea of possession through relationship with widow dismissed – Plaintiff failed to prove possession and title through cogent evidence – Lower appellate court erred in granting decree of injunction based on unsubstantiated relationship and possession claims [Paras 23-25].

Procedural Law – Successors not Impleaded – No successor of deceased husband impleaded in the suit – Injunction suit failed without necessary parties – Mere plea of possession not sufficient for decree without proving title and proper succession [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – Judgment and decree of lower appellate court set aside – Original suit dismissed for lack of evidence on possession and title [Paras 26-28].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Gangsters Act – Appellant convicted under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act – Trial court sentenced appellant to four years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine – Prosecution’s evidence primarily based on a single FIR and witness testimonies – High Court examines procedural lapses, evidence admissibility, and credibility of witnesses [Paras 1-88]. 

Evidence Act – Hostile Witnesses and Corroborative Evidence – Court scrutinizes the testimony of key witnesses, including hostile witnesses – Emphasis on corroborative evidence linking appellant to the gang activities – Court addresses the legal standards for invoking Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act [Paras 62-70, 57-61]. 

Acquittal in Base Case and Impact on Gangsters Act Conviction – Appellant previously acquitted in a related murder case – Appellant’s acquittal used to challenge the Gangsters Act conviction – Court discusses the implications of acquittal on subsequent convictions under the Gangsters Act [Paras 34-48]. 

Procedural Lapses in Gangsters Act Application – Examination of procedural requirements under the Gangsters Act – Collector’s mechanical approval without proper enquiry – Importance of reasoned decisions by authorities highlighted [Paras 75-82]. 

Decision – Appeals partially allowed – Conviction under Gangsters Act set aside due to procedural deficiencies and lack of sufficient evidence – Appellant acquitted of charges under the Gangsters Act – High Court emphasizes need for proper procedural adherence and reliable evidence in such convictions [Para 14-15]. 

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Rape Allegations: Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in a case registered under Section 376 IPC. The petitioner allegedly committed sexual assault on the prosecutrix under the false promise of marriage. The trial court denied bail, and the petitioner approached the High Court.

Prima Facie Evidence – Consent and Misconception: The court observed that the prosecutrix was in a long-standing relationship with the petitioner and had engaged in consensual intercourse on multiple occasions. The prosecutrix’s subsequent resumption of the relationship cast doubt on her claim that her consent was obtained under a misconception of fact arising from a false promise of marriage.

Grant of Bail – Factors Considered: The court considered the nature of the accusation, the petitioner’s young age, and the prosecutrix’s conduct. The petitioner had been in custody for over a year, and the chargesheet was already filed. The court found a prima facie case for granting bail.

Decision: Bail granted subject to conditions, including furnishing a bail bond, appearing before the trial court on each hearing, not tampering with witnesses, and not leaving the territorial limits without permission.