Babu Lal And Another vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioners, Babu Lal and another, filed a writ petition challenging an eviction order dated 20.02.2023, passed by the Collector, Bawal, under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972. The eviction was based on non-payment of rent, GST, and service tax. An appeal filed by the petitioners against this order was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Gurugram, on 13.08.2025. The petitioners sought to set aside both orders. During proceedings on 24.12.2025, the petitioners' counsel stated they were ready to clear arrears of Rs. 15,85,009/- and proposed a payment plan, including a demand draft of Rs. 6,00,000/- and the balance in installments, along with an undertaking to pay future rent in advance. The Court directed the petitioners to file an affidavit and deposit the demand draft within a week, deferring eviction proceedings. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application seeking an extension of time until October 2026 to comply with the 24.12.2025 order, citing financial constraints.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners had failed to comply with the order dated 24.12.2025, which was passed based on their counsel's undertaking to clear all arrears and pay future rent in advance. The application for extension of time was dismissed because the petitioners had not fulfilled the conditions set by the Court. The Court found no justification for granting any extension, stating that it appeared the petitioners had taken a false stand before the Court, expressing willingness to clear arrears without the real intention to do so. The Court emphasized that no indulgence should be extended to litigants who do not approach the court with clean hands, a clean mind, and a clean heart. Consequently, the writ petition and the application for extension were dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition and the application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to an extension of time to comply with the order dated 24.12.2025, which directed them to clear rent arrears and pay future rent in advance, considering their stated financial constraints and the fact that they have not complied with the original order. Petitioner's argument: The petitioners argued that they belong to a poor family dependent on labor and livestock and are unable to arrange the money as directed. They are willing to comply but seek a reasonable extension until October 2026 to fulfill the directions, emphasizing that the judicial process aims for substantial justice and minor procedural lapses should not lead to harsh consequences. They are ready to deposit the entire balance amount in one installment in October 2026 and stated the delay is neither intentional nor willful. Revenue/State's argument: The respondents, through the Divisional Commissioner and Municipal Committee, had initially agreed to permit the petitioners to continue tenancy if arrears were cleared and future rent was paid in advance. However, the judgment indicates the petitioners failed to comply with the order dated 24.12.2025, which was based on their counsel's undertaking. The Court noted the petitioners had not complied with the order and sought an extension, suggesting they had taken a false stand.