MRN: “Yes, your lordship is right. I have a tough task. But sometimes such tough cases provide easy answers. I intend to surprise your Lordships and literally tie up your hands from dismissing the petition. Just give me 5 minutes.”

Musings At Law- XX
Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan

“Law is an art. Law is science. Equally, Law is an ass. But, above all, Law is language. I always loved literature. So it was natural for me to love those who read law, as in literature and philosophy, and try to read justice into it. Notwithstanding the criticism, I have faced from academicians and Originalists in my ‘flights of fancy’ as they called it, to disregard precedents, I have always believed in doing justice in spite of law. The Blind Lady of Justice has never failed me, for I have always paid by obeisance to her”, that was the one and only, Lord Denning.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, a true blue conservative, in the US Supreme Court, in his Talking Law, wondered aloud how Denning could last as long as he did at the very top, despite his proclivities to ‘take law to the cleaners’. And then he concludes, it is possibly for his love of justice in a court of law, that he was the darling of the masses, even if he was an unelected entity. More importantly, ‘ironing out the creases in the statute’ as Denning euphemistically put it, with a literary flourish, ended in Parliament tweaking the statute, to the bewilderment of the House of Lords, who came down on Lord Denning like a tonne of bricks, on Denning’s side, more often than not.

Early in my practice, I had read anything and everything on Lord Denning, of course, only after my favourite Sir Neville Cardus, the brilliant cricket critic. Cardus’ felicity of expression was legendary that more than Don Bradman’s sweep or Wally Hammond’s cover drive or Harold Larwood’s bumpers or Clarie Grimmet’s rippers, it was Cardus’ description of them that was poetic beauty. When Hammond confronted Cardus once at Lords, “How dare you criticise my cover drive. You hack, here is my Bat, can you show me how it ought to have been played”. Cardus: “Excuse me Wally, you’ve got it all wrong. To choose between a good and a bad egg, you need not lay one”. Perfect definition of a critic, as our own A S Subramanian @ Subbudu was in the world of Carnatic music.

Sports, music and law have a lot in common. It arises from the beauty of the language in which the performances are captured in. Language has that unique faculty. That is why when you read and re-read the provisions, one can surprise oneself, at times. Each one of us could have had similar experiences. But, to me, one stood out, above all others, for I was tangling with the numero uno among the lawyers, in Senior Advocate M R Narayanaswami. And before my favourite judge Justice S Mohan, before the 3rd Court, within a year of my becoming a lawyer.

It was a mouth watering prospect. Typically, my Senior was not even aware that I was defending the landlord that day. It was a very prominent building, in Parrys Corner, Chennai, where the High Court itself was situate. The tenant was running a Printing Press. And in occupation for over 3 decades. The landlord was desperate to get the premises back and he had applied for eviction for demolition and reconstruction of the 80 year old building.

The Civil Revision Petition, under the rent control legislation, was filed by the tenant against concurrent orders of the courts below. The tenant had a lot at stake, and he had even offered to buy up the premises. So, he engaged MRN, a doyen of the Bar, to pursue his tough petition. He must have been thrilled to see me appearing for the landlord and not my Senior.

Even before MRN opened up, Mohan: “MRN, you are too experienced for me to update you on the law. After holding on to possession for thirty years and losing before both courts below, do you stand a chance. The fact that the tenant has engaged you reveals the desperation of your client.” MRN: “Yes, your lordship is right. I have a tough task. But sometimes such tough cases provide easy answers. I intend to surprise your Lordships and literally tie up your hands from dismissing the petition. Just give me 5 minutes.”

“Please note that the petition for eviction was filed seeking demolition and reconstruction of the tenanted premises. I am not troubling this Court with any of the findings. It is too late in the day, I am quite well aware. But, please read the pleadings in the petition. Admittedly and undeniably, the landlord has failed to give an ‘undertaking’ that is mandatory- that he would demolish and reconstruct the premises within the stipulated four months. It is a condition precedent to sustain the petition. It has been overlooked by both the rent controller and the appellate authority. It is a legal plea. I am entitled to pursue it, even at this stage, as it is on admitted facts. “.

“To make it easy for your Lordships, I am citing a direct and binding verdict of His Lordship former Chief Justice T. Ramprasad Rao, who incidentally, was your lordship’s revered senior. The concurrent orders of eviction may need to go. And possibly landlord given an opportunity to start all over again. I am sorry it must be so. But that is what confronts the landlord and this court”.

Mohan: “Who is on the other side? MRN seems to be right on the dot. It seems so unfortunate but law is ruthless and objective. It admits no exceptions at times. My heart goes out to the desperation of the landlord, who has been pursuing this cause all these years. It does appear as if my hands may well be tied. May be, I can give your client an opportunity to file a fresh petition with the undertaking, within a timeline and direct the rent controller to decide it within 6 months or so.”

I found that in the meanwhile, a colleague had run off to our Chambers and brought my Senior to the Court, as MRN was seen to be turning the tables. My Senior came and sat next to me. He asked me whether I was ready to go ahead and respond, or he wanted time to brief him so that he can respond next week. I boldly said that I was not only ready and eager, but felt confident to convince the learned judge.

Senior: “Mi Lord, I am convinced that it is such a simple case that MRN was compelled to make a mountain out of a molehill. My colleague, I never call them juniors, would be enough to convince your Lordship”. He sat down gleefully, as is his wont, as I took the opportunity with both hands, legs, entire body, mind and face. I genuinely felt confident because I knew Justice Mohan loved English as much as his and my mother tongue. He was very well read and loved the nuances and sophistry in the language, and the meanings at times tucked away in the edges, crevices or between the words in the provision.

Me: “Mi Lord, May I be permitted to read Sec.14 please.” Mohan: “Come on Counsel, you are young. MRN and your Senior and myself and my senior Ramprasad Rao have all read it, any number of times. There is nothing for us to read today. I can understand your anxiety that the rug was being pulled from under the feet of the landlord. It happens sometimes. Nothing you or I or anyone can do. You may have been in school when this litigation began. So you don’t need to feel bad about the turn of events”. Me: “No, please Mi Lord. Just one time, could I read it and you may also please look at the provision. Please do.” I was begging literally.

I read the opening lines of the provision and stopped with a pregnant pause. Me: “My case is made with this Mi Lord. The cited precedent did not see the difference. The legislative intent from the opening phraseology is clear and evident. The ‘undertaking’ contemplated under the provision, is not a condition precedent or ‘obligation’ on the landlord. It is an ‘embargo’ on the Court from granting a decree of eviction, without obtaining an undertaking from the landlord. The CRP is pending. All that needs to be done to fulfill the need for ‘undertaking’, is for this Court to insist and obtain an affidavit to that effect, from the landlord in these proceedings. Once that is complied with, this Court gets the right to order eviction, as the embargo is removed. May I ….”

Mohan started to read the opening lines, once, twice and thrice and then : “Ha, Ha, Ha, MRN, I am also junior of V K Thiruvenkatachari, who always insisted that we must read the statutory provisions, every time, in the context of the case on hand. This boy has been trained by VKT Chari, I know. (Mohan had written the Foreword for my first book by then). Now, I can see that your defence has started to wobble. Please read the provision , as he read it and paused, and tell me whether the ‘undertaking’ under Sec.14 was a condition precedent to maintain the petition for eviction, or an ‘embargo’ or bar on the court, to insist on such an undertaking, before it granted the eviction prayer for. My God, it is so simple and straightforward.”

MRN: “Mi Lord, may be the way the young man read it suggests it may be possible. But that is not how Chief Justice Ramprasad Rao understood it. If your Lordship is dissenting then the matter may have to go before a Bench.”

Mohan: “Well, Well, Well, typical tenant submission. I am not going to say that Ramprasad Rao is wrong. It is just that everyone involved in that case missed the wood for the trees. If that is now seen, then the decision has to be different in the context of the facts of this case. I am not dissenting. I am only pointing out…..”

Me: “May I bring to your lordship’s notice a very recent verdict under Industrial Disputes Act, where your Lordships accepted my learned Senior’s submission (MRN) , where an earlier verdict was held to be inapplicable, ‘as it failed to read the provision in its entirety as Mr. MRN has urged”. (I had sent word through a colleague to rush to the Chamber and bring me this citation which I happened to read that very morning).

Mohan: “Ha, Ha, Ha- MRN, we learn every day in this profession. But I am astounded how a simple reading of the relevant provision in the context of a case on hand, dramatically alters the perception and our understanding. MRN, you have been floored by your own brilliance. You should feel happy and proud, not disappointed. You opened the door for this young man to quote you, on your word, and bind me to mine.”

MRN: “I am satisfied that justice is being done. I expected your lordships to dismiss my CRP, but not the way it has turned out. It was the tenant’s third round in courts, and he had had a long innings. May I request you to extend it by 3 months and we shall file an ‘undertaking’ to vacate in time”. Before Mohan could respond, my Senior, “Mi Lord, why 3 months, I would agree for 6 months, considering the length of time the tenant has been in occupation. I will file the affidavit of undertaking the landlord needs to file by 14.15 itself.”
As we were getting out, my Senior, “Rajah, who was that fellow who brought me to Court. I got to see what my Senior H.M. Small would have loved to see. Incidentally, I wonder whether I may have put it as well you did. Ultimately, bear in mind, no cause is lost until it is actually lost. God Bless”.
(Author is practising advocate in the Madras High Court)