Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 10275
Page 1 of 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 10.01.2024 Judgment pronounced on: 04.03.2024 + CM(M) 457/2019, CM APPL. 13008/2019 (stay) CHANDRA KANTA AGARWALA ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr.
Satyam Thareja and Mr.
Prratyaksh Sikodia, Advocates.
versus AJAY GAUR & ANR ..... Respondents Through:
Mr.Harpreet Singh and Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocates for R1.
Mr.Sanyat Lodha, Ms. Surbhi Arora and Mr. Lavam Tyagi, Advocates for R2.
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Limited scope of intervention under Article 227 and the need for a failure in the exercise of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or illegality in the decision.
Headnote:
Handwriting Expert - Tenancy Dispute - The court upheld the limited scope of intervention under Article 227, emphasizing the need for a failure in the exercise of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or illegality in the decision. The petitioner's request for expert opinion on disputed signatures was denied, with the court directing the petitioner to seek permission from the Civil Judge where the original affidavit was filed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside the trial court's order dismissing the application for production of records and permission to take photographs of disputed signatures. The dispute arose from a tenancy agreement and subsequent partnership changes, leading to a dispute over the relinquishment of tenancy rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court emphasized the limited scope of intervention under Article 227, highlighting the need for a failure in the exercise of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or illegality in the decision. The petitioner's request for expert opinion on disputed signatures was denied, with the court directing the petitioner to seek permission from the Civil Judge where the original affidavit was filed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the trial court's refusal to exercise jurisdiction to summon records and consider the relevance of the disputed affidavit at the interim stage. The petitioner contested the denial of expert opinion and the trial court's alleged exceeding of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the limited scope of intervention under Article 227, emphasizing the need for a failure in the exercise of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or illegality in the decision. The petitioner's request for expert opinion on disputed signatures was denied, with the court directing the petitioner to seek permission from the Civil Judge where the original affidavit was filed.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to seek permission from the Civil Judge where the original affidavit was filed for expert opinion on disputed signatures. The petition along with pending application was disposed of.
JUDGEMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the learned CCJ-cum-ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter as “Trial Court”) in Eviction Petition No. 878/2017 titled as “Chandra Kanta Agarwala vs Ajay Gaur” whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application moved by the petitioner seeking production of record in CS No.
94917/2016 titled as “Ajay Gaur vs. Vijay Gaur”& for grant of permission to take photographs of the admitted signatures of the respondent no. 2 on the affidavit, for verification by the handwriting expert.
2. Shorn of superfluities, the facts of the case at hand are that the petitioner on 01.06.1981 executed an unregistered rent agreement with 4 Page 2 of 9 persons namely (i) respondent no. 1, (ii) respondent no. 2, (iii) their brother Shri Jai Prakash Gaur and (iv) their late father Shri M.P. Gaur, with respect to property bearing no. 1877/2 Mahalaxmi Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-6 (hereinafter as “tenanted premises”). The tenanted premises was let out to the tenants for a commercial purpose and in pursuance of the same they set up a partnership business vide partnership deed dated 01.07.1981, under the name of M/s Gaur Electric Co.
3. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 Vijay Gaur and Shri Jai Prakash Gaur relinquished their tenancy rights in the tenanted premises by way of affidavits dated 21.12.1992 and 17.02.1993, respectively. Resultantly, the tenanted premises remained under the control and occupation of the two remaining partners in the partnership i.e. respondent no. 1 Ajay Gaur and late Shri M.P. Gaur. The partnership was also reconstituted with only two remaining partners vide partnership deed dated 21.05.1992.
4. Mr. M.P. Gaur expired on 18.01.1999 and by virtue of the Will of his father, dated 21.05.1992, respondent no. 1 became the sole proprietor in the partnership business and also became the sole tenant of the tenanted premises who continued to pay rent to the petitioner. The rent receipts were also issued by the petitioner in his name alone, acknowledging sole tenancy.
5. In the meanwhile, a partnership deed dated 01.04.2009 was entered into between the respondent no. 1 and his brother respondent no. 2, to induct the latter as a partner back in the partnership. However, the petitioner remained unaware of this development.
6. Sometime in 2010, the respondents filed a petition under section 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter as “DRC Act”) wherein the respondents alleged themselves to be the tenants in the tenanted premises.
Page 3 of 9 Petitioner received a notice in the petition and subsequently, filed the objections therein. The respondent no. 2 deposited the rent for the period from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015.
7. Subsequent to obtaining permission by the competent authority, slum vide order dated 05.09.2017, the petitioner filed the present eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of DRC before the learned trial court on the ground of sub-letting the premises to respondent no. 2 by the respondent no. 1, without the consent of the petitioner.
8. The controversy that revolves around the impugned order and the present petition relates to verification of signature by respondent no. 2 Vijay Gaur by the handwriting expert, on the copy of the affidavit on which the petitioner relies and formed basis for eviction. The said affidavit is dated 21.12.1992 whereby the respondent no. 2 relinquished his tenancy rights with respect to the tenanted premises. The respondent no. 2 has denied the signature on the aforesaid affidavit to be his. The said affidavit has been filed in the case titled “Ajay Gaur vs Vijay Gaur” in CS No. 94917/2016 which is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Later, petitioner moved an application in the petition seeking permission to take photographs of the admitted and disputed signature of respon
