Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 5414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Kali Charan Saini - Appellant
Versus
Seema Devi Khandelwal - Respondent
CM(M) 1539 of 2023 & CM APPL. 48605 of 2023
Decided On : 11-10-2023
Mr. R.K. Saini and Ms. Neelam Saini, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Dhawan, Advocate, for the Respondent.
IMPORTANT POINT
The admissibility and relevance of additional documents in eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Headnote:
Additional Documents - Eviction Petition - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e) - CPC Order VIII Rule 1A(3)
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenges the dismissal of an application seeking to place additional documents on record in support of the defenses raised in an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the documents sought to be placed on record did not substantiate the petitioner's stance and appeared dubious, leading to the dismissal of the application.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility and relevance of the additional documents in the eviction proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the documents by the Rent Controller was correct and did not require any interference.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as without merit, and the pending application was disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral) - This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the ARC-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Rent Controller') in RC ARC No. 397/2021, titled as `Seema Devi Khandelwal v. Kali Charan Saini', whereby the Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner herein under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') for placing on record additional documents in support of the defences raised in the application seeking leave to defend.
1.1. The Petitioner is the tenant and the Respondent is the landlady. An eviction petition was filed by the Respondent herein under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking eviction of the Petitioner from Shop No. 10454, Bagichi Allaudin, Desh Raj Bhatia Marg, Motia Khan, Pharaganj, New Delhi (`subject premises') on the ground that the subject premises is required by the Petitioner for her bona fide need of running a boutique business.
1.2. The Petitioner filed his application seeking leave to defend to the eviction petition, inter alia, raising the issue that Shop No. 10452, which is alleged by the Respondent herein to being used by her husband under the name and style of SS & Company, is actually under the occupation of one Sh. Chetan, who is running a mobile shop under the name and style of `Vivo Mobile Shop'. It is stated that the said Shop has been let out to Sh. Chetan, two (2) months prior to filing of eviction petition.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that by way of this application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC, the Petitioner is seeking to bring on record the following two (2) documents, to substantiate his stance in the leave to defend:
i. The deed of partnership dated 01.10.2019 (`Partnership Deed') executed between one Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma s/o Sh. Chote Lal Sharma and one Sh. Manoj Kumar s/o Sh. Dhiraj Kumar, for carrying on business of mobile phones and its accessories in the name and style of M/s Aman Enterprises; and
ii. Photographs of shop No. 10452, Gali No.2, Bagichi Allauding, Motia Khan, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi (`Shop No. 10452'), which show that one Sh. Chetan is running a mobile shop therein and he is the proprietor.
2.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the copy of the Partnership Deed was provided to the Petitioner by Mr. Chetan. He states that the said partnership firm namely M/s Aman Enterprises vacated the shop No. 10452 at least two (2) months prior to the filing of the eviction petition. He fairly states that no averment with respect to occupation of shop No. 10452 by M/s Aman Enterprises was raised in the leave to defend.
2.2. He states that the photographs sought to be placed on record shows that Mr. Chetan is the proprietor in shop No. 10452, and in one of the photographs, Mr. Chetan can be seen vending from the shop.
3. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent, landlady, states on instructions that in view of the fact that there was no averment raised with respect to M/s Aman Enterprises, no document can now be placed on record. He states that even otherwise M/s Aman Enterprises was never in occupation of shop No. 10452.
3.1. With respect to the photographs, he states that in three (3) of the said photographs a sign board is partially visible with `VIV' written over it and right underneath it, there is an alleged plastic strip pasted on the hoarding, mentioning the name of the proprietor as Sh. Chetan. He states that, however, the said photographs are forged and fabricated. He states that there is no such plastic pasting on the sign board and ex facie the photographs appear to be tampered with. He states that the tampering is also evident on a comparison of the photographs already filed on record by the Petitioner with the application seeking leave to defend.
3.2. He states that the photograph wherein Mr. Chetan can be seen vending from the shop is of no consequence. He states
