IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Mohd. Kashif - Appellant
Versus
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 17655 of 2022, CM APPLs. 64117 of 2023, 64118 of 2023, 64119 of 2023, 64120 of 2023, 64121 of 2023 & REVIEW PET. 341 of 2023
Decided On : 12-12-2023
Review Petition - Unauthorized Construction - Section 114 CPC, Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Fact of the Case:
The Applicant/Petitioner sought action against unauthorized construction and running of a guest house by the Respondent No.5. The Court dismissed the petition stating that there was no unauthorized construction and the guest house was duly licensed. The Petitioner filed a review petition claiming to be a legal tenant and alleging illegal construction by the Respondent No.5.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.5 involved personal disputes regarding the subject property. It dismissed the review petition and all pending applications, ordering the Petitioner to deposit costs within four weeks.
Issues: Unauthorized construction, legal tenancy, personal disputes between parties, delay in filing review petition
Ratio Decidendi: Private disputes between parties cannot be given public color in a writ petition. The Court also found no unauthorized construction and upheld the legality of the guest house.
Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed, and the Petitioner was ordered to deposit costs within four weeks.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPLs. 64117/2023, 64118/2023, 64119/2023, 64120/2023, 64121/2023 & REVIEW PET. 341/2023
2. The present review petition under Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been filed by the Applicant/Petitioner-Mohd. Kashif seeking reconsideration of the order dated 21st February, 2023.
3. The Applicant/Petitioner filed the present petition seeking action to be taken against the alleged unauthorized construction and running of a guest house by the Respondent No.5 -Mohd. Ashfaq under the name `M/s Al Ashfaq Guest House' at `Property No.955, Gali Shyam Lal, Jama Masjid, Delhi-110006' (hereinafter, `subject property').
4. The Applicant/Petitioner urged that he was in the lawful occupation of the shop situated on the ground floor of the subject property, and that the Respondent No.5, in collusion with the statutory authorities such as MCD, GNCTD and police, raised unauthorized construction and was running a guest house.
5. The Applicant/Petitioner claimed to have made representations on 13th April, 2022 against the said illegal activity. Since no action was taken, hence, the present petition was filed. Mr. Ahmed, ld. counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was living in the vicinity and therefore, was affected by the activities of the guest house.
6. Vide order dated 21st February, 2023, this Court dismissed the present petition in the following terms:
"3. On behalf of the MCD, it is submitted that the photographs itself would show that there is no unauthorized construction being carried out. Further, Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, ld. Counsel for MCD submits that the guest house is duly licensed till 31st March, 2024. This position is confirmed by ld. counsel appearing for the GNCTD.
4. Mr. Nagar, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.5 submits that the entire petition itself is mala fide, inasmuch as the Petitioner is illegally squatting in Property No.956 qua which eviction proceedings have been initiated by the Respondent No.5 against the Petitioner. He submits that the matter is pending before the Additional Rent Controller (`ARC') and today is the date for final pronouncement of the order in that matter.
5. On a query from the Court, as to why the Petitioner has not disclosed the eviction proceedings, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the property is different, the need for disclosure of the said dispute was not felt.
6. The Court has considered the matter. The scope of this writ petition is in respect of the Respondent No.5's property and the guest house being run. The governmental authorities have confirmed that there is no unauthorized construction, which is currently taking place. The guest house is duly licensed. Hence, the directions sought cannot be passed in this matter. Further, it is also a cause for concern that the present petition appears to have been a vexatious attempt by the Petitioner to cause unnecessary harassment to Respondent No.5. The Petitioner has nowhere disclosed the proceedings for eviction, which were pending between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.5. A fair disclosure of the same was required in these circumstances.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-to be paid to the Respondent No.5. The same shall be paid within a period of 4 weeks failing which the Respondent No.5 is free to take steps to recover the same.
8. The petition is dismissed. Pending application is also disposed of."
7. The Applicant/Petitioner has filed a review petition against the above order. The broad grounds for review in the review petition are as follows:
Private disputes between parties cannot be given public color in a writ petition.
Where an appeal against a demolition order is pending before the Appellate Tribunal, the authority must maintain status quo as directed by the Tribunal, while regularization applications are consider....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.