Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 268
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
Savitri Devi Gupta
Versus
Dharam Pal Tanwar
CM(M) No. 83, 92 & 96 OF 2012 & CM Nos.1229-1230, 1464-65 & 1513-14 OF 2012
Decided on : 01-02-2012
For the Petitioner:S.C. Singhal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Nemo.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the powers of review are not available to the Rent Controller or the Rent Control Tribunal under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Headnote:
Rent Control Tribunal - Eviction Petition - Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act - [Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act] - The court discussed the powers of review available to the Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal, citing relevant case law and legal provisions. It emphasized that the powers of review are not available to the Rent Controller or the Rent Control Tribunal under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Fact of the Case:
The eviction petitions were decreed in favor of the landlord under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The tenant filed a review petition, contending that the statements made by the parties were without her instructions and plans had not been sanctioned by the landlord for reconstruction. The review petition was dismissed, and the appeal against it was also dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the powers of review are not available to the Rent Controller or the Rent Control Tribunal under the Delhi Rent Control Act. It noted that the statements made by the parties during the trial led to the disposal of the petition as compromised, and the dismissal of the review petition was justified as no action had been taken against the erring counsel for more than two years.
Issues: The issues revolved around the availability of powers of review to the Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal, the validity of the statements made by the parties, and the dismissal of the review petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the powers of review are not available to the Rent Controller or the Rent Control Tribunal under the Delhi Rent Control Act, citing relevant case law and legal provisions. It also noted that the dismissal of the review petition was justified due to the lack of action against the erring counsel.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the impugned order of the Rent Control Tribunal and emphasizing the lack of infirmity in the judgment.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 23.08.2011 vide which the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) had while disposed of three appeals i.e. (i) RCT No. 23/2010 passed in Eviction Petition No. 318/2008 titled Smt. Savitri Devi Gupta Vs. Shri Dharam Pal Tanwar, (ii) RCT No. 24/2010 passed in Eviction Petition No. 317/2008 & (iii) RCT No. 25/2010 passed in Eviction Petition No. 87/2008. These eviction petitions had been filed under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) and had been decreed in favour of the landlord; premises in dispute relate to property bearing No. WZ-193 & WZ-194, Nangal Raya, Delhi. The ARC had decreed these eviction petitions on 06.05.2009 on the following statement made by the counsel for the parties which reads herein as under:-
“Statement of Sh. Dharam Pal Tanwar S.o Late Sh. Ram Sharma Tanwar, aged about 60 years, R/o WZ-1535, negal Raya, Delhi-46. On SA I am petitioner in the present petition. Today the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and as per this settlement, I state that I shall reconstruct the shop in question i.e. WZ-194 and WZ-193-B, Nangal Raya, Jail Road, N.Delhi within three months after the Respondent vacate the hand over the possession to me. I say that I will further let out the said shop to the respondent only after reconstruction. ROAC Navita Kumari ARC/West THC 06/05/09”” “Statement of Sh. Dhruv Pratap Singh, Counsel for the Respondent at Bar am counsel for the Respondent in the present petition. On instruction from the Respondent today, the matter has been settled and as per the instructions of the Respondent, I state that the Respondent shall vacate and hand over the tenanted shop to the petitioner within a week for reconstruction and petitioner will further let out the said shop to the Respondent only after reconstruction. ROAC Navita Kumari ARC/West THC 06/05/09”
2. These statements were made by the parties when the trial was in progress i.e. at the stage of cross-examination of PW-1.
3. Thereafter on 11.05.2009, a review petition was filed by the tenant seeking review of the order dated 06.05.2009; contention being that his counsel had no authority to make a statement on her behalf; said statement was without her instructions; even otherwise, plans have not been got sanctioned by the landlord in the absence of which it is not possible to construct the suit property and as such the statements noted in the order of the ARC dated 06.05.2009 cannot fructify.
4. This review petition was dismissed by the ARC on 23.03.2010.
5. Against this order, an appeal had been filed before the RCT which was dismissed by the impugned order on 23.08.2011. The impugned order was of the view that the power of review is not available either with the Rent Controller or with the Rent Control Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by this finding. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court reported as 22 (1982) DLT 230 Aggarwal Hardware Works Private Limited Vs. C.V.S. Vasantha; submission is that the judgment relied upon by the trial Court reported as 2009 (1) RCR 296 Nand Kishore & Anr. Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta is distinct on its facts; this judgment has even otherwise not considered the dictum of this court in the judgment of Aggarwal Hardware Works Private Limited (Supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in JT 2009 (14) SCALE 672 Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (Dead) through LRs; contention being that Rule 23 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 has been excluded in its application only for a special class of landlords and the present petition which has been filed by the landlord under Section 14 (1)(a) & (b) of the DRCA is not a special class of landlord; the impugned judgment dismissing his application for review only on the ground that powers of review are not available to the ARC and the RCT suffers from an infirmity.
