Naveen Kumar Mittal v. M/S Pritam Electric Company

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the trial court dated 06.8.2013 by which the trial court struck off the defence of the petitioner/defendant/tenant because of non-compliance by the petitioner/defendant/tenant of the order to file all documents submitted by the petitioner/defendant/tenant signed in Hindi to the Governmental authorities between the years 1993-2006.

2. The disputes with respect to submitting of signatures of the petitioner/defendant/tenant to the Governmental authorities arose because the petitioner/defendant/tenant disputed his signatures on the rent agreement 2014:DHC:5781 and counterfoils of rent receipts, and had signed his pleadings both in English and Hindi.

3. It is not unknown that the tenants in a suit for possession which is filed in civil courts in Delhi, in most of the cases do not have substantial defences, and therefore every trick in the book and not in the book is used to somehow or the other delay and drag the suit for possession. The present petition as also the delaying tactics of the petitioner/defendant/tenant in the trial court is clearly a part of this malafide process.

4. The original order passed by the trial court in this case is dated 03.7.2012, and which is a detailed order giving reasons why the petitioner/defendant/tenant must file all documents bearing his signatures in Hindi submitted to the Governmental authorities between the years 1993- 2006, and as stated above it is because of the respondent/plaintiff filing the rent agreement and counterfoils of rent receipts in court showing the signatures of the petitioner/defendant/tenant in Hindi but the petitioner had denied the same.

5. By the order dated 03.7.2012, the petitioner/defendant/tenant had to file an affidavit giving details of all the documents which were signed by the petitioner/defendant/tenant in Hindi and submitted to the Governmental authorities between the years 1993-2006, but the petitioner/defendant/tenant filed only one document being a copy of his passport and did not deliberately file an affidavit that he had not signed in Hindi in any other documents submitted to the Governmental authorities between the years 1993-2006. This position continues till the date thus showing the contumacious conduct of the petitioner/defendant/tenant.

6. In view of the fact that the petitioner/defendant/tenant failed to comply with the order dated 03.7.2012, by the impugned detailed order dated 06.8.2013, the trial court in my opinion has rightly struck off the defence of the petitioner/defendant/tenant. The petitioner/defendant/tenant in any case will have a right to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff/landlord and also to argue at the stage of final arguments.

7. The present petition being an abuse of the process of the law is dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within a period of six weeks from today.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 07, 2014 KA