Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
MOOL CHAND SHARMA - PETITIONER
Versus
DELHI PRANTIYA RAIGAR MANDIR - RESPONDENT
RC.REV. 492 of 2017
Decided On : 01-11-2017
Rent Control Revision Petition - Eviction - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 25B(8) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and Section 25B(4) of the Act, as well as the interpretation of rent laws without bias in favor of the landlord or tenant, as established in the judgments Nidhi Vs. Ram Kripal Sharma and Dina Nath Vs. Subhash Chand Saini.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge an order of eviction under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming that the eviction was obtained against deceased persons and alleging abuse of court process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to disclose all relevant facts and selectively presented documents, leading to an abuse of the court process. The court also held that the landlord was entitled to file the eviction petition against the assumed name under which the tenant conducted business.
Issues: Selective disclosure of facts, abuse of court process, failure to file leave to defend application, and the validity of filing an eviction petition against an assumed name.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the petitioner to make a full disclosure of facts and interpreted the rent laws without bias in favor of the landlord or tenant. It also held that a tenant assuming a different name for renting premises cannot complain against the landlord suing in that assumed name.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed.
CM No. 39079/2017 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
RC.REV. 492/2017 & CM No. 39078/2017 (for stay)
3. This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order [dated 19th September, 2017 in Case No. 637/2017 (U.ID No. 737/2017) of the Pilot Court (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi] of eviction with respect to premises No. 53/4505-09, Reghar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard and the paper book perused.
5. The respondent instituted the petition for eviction, from which this petition arises, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, against “Kanahiya Lal Chunni Lal”. Summons of the said petition for eviction were ordered to be issued. The impugned order records that the respondent “Kanahiya Lal Chunni Lal” was duly served with the summons of the petition for eviction on 25th August, 2017 but failed to file application for leave to defend the petition for eviction. Axiomatically, in accordance with Section 25B(4) of the Act, the order of eviction was passed.
6. The petitioner Mool Chand Sharma has filed this petition averring (i) that his paternal grandfather Kanahiya Lal had taken on rent the premises with respect to which order of eviction has been passed and after his death, the father of the petitioner namely Chunni Lal became the tenant in the premises and after the death of his father Chunni Lal, he has become the tenant in the premises and has been paying the rent of the premises; (ii) that summons of the petition for eviction were received by an employee of the petitioner Mool Chand Sharma; (iii) that Himanshu Sharma, son of the petitioner Mool Chand Sharma appeared and apprised the Additional Rent Controller about the death of both Kanahiya Lal and Chunni Lal but the Court said that since no application for leave to defend has been filed, the Court was obliged to pass an order; (iv) that this petition has been preferred on the grounds that the order of eviction has been obtained against dead persons.
7. Being curious, as to why the respondent would file the petition for eviction, not individually against Kanahiya Lal or against Chunni Lal or against the petitioner herein, if they were the tenants but against ‘Kanahiya Lal Chunni Lal’, I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, whether the respondent along with the petition for eviction filed any rent receipts.
8. The counsel for the petitioner states that rent receipts were filed and has in Court handed over a bunch of documents containing rent receipts and which indeed show issuance of rent receipts by the respondent for the subject premises in the name of “Kanahiya Lal Chunni Lal”, including for the period after the death of Kanahiya Lal as well as Chunni Lal.
9. It was the duty of the petitioner, to before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, either make a clean disclosure of all facts, by placing the entire record of the learned ARC before this Court or at least to make a disclosure in the petition under Section 25B(8) of the Act of the reason which prevailed with the respondent to file the petition for eviction in the name of “Kanahiya Lal Chunni Lal” and/or then render explanation thereof.
10. The counsel for the petitioner however chose to selectively disclose to this Court, documents on the record of the ARC, not disclosing the documents which were not in favour of the petitioner and not making any disclosure of the said fact in the petition for eviction.
11. The same, in my view, is an abuse of the process of the Court and attempting to take an advantage of issuance of notice of this petition and grant of ex-parte stay of the order of eviction.
12. The petitioner is liable to be non-suited on this ground alone.
13. Moreover, there is no explanation as to why the petitioner, after the admitted service of summons of the petition for eviction at the premises claimed by the petitioner to be now in his tenancy, di
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
