Sudesh Kumar Gupta v. M/S. Nirula Handicraft Bazar Pvt Ltd

1. No doubt, tenants keep on filing frivolous petitions and frivolous applications one after the another to delay the disposal of a bonafide necessity petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), but the present petition is one which probably is an indication that every trick and in the book is to be used by hook or crook tenants must ensure that a bonafide necessity petition does not proceed ahead. 2014:DHC:4195

2. The bonafide necessity eviction petition is filed by the respondent/landlord which is a company and the bonafide necessity eviction petition has been filed because as per the company, it was carrying on business at property nos. 10,12 and 14 in Doctor’s Lane, Gole Market, New Delhi having approximately an area of 25000 sq. ft. which was sealed during the sealing drive in Delhi and also that the same was not enough to accommodate the business of the respondent/landlord with its 58 employees, and artisans/workmen etc. It was pleaded in the eviction petition that need for accommodation was accentuated because two flat nos. 3 and 6 on the first floor of the property in 1, Doctor’s Lane, Gole Market, New Delhi were available to the respondent/landlord but were got sealed by the NDMC. It was specifically pleaded in the eviction petition that the respondent/landlord was only partially able to accommodate his business, workmen, artisans etc in flat no.3 and 6 (first floor) after the property at nos. 10,12 and 14, Doctor’s Lane, Gole Market, New Delhi were sealed by the Monitoring Committee. Therefore, the respondent/landlord pleaded a bonafide need of the tenanted premises being shop no. 6 in property no.1, Doctor’s Lane, Gole Market, New Delhi on the ground floor.

3. The eviction petition was filed in the year 2009 ie about 5 years back. From the year of 2009 however for some reason or the other the petitioner/tenant has managed to stall of hearing of the leave to defend application filed by it.

4. The impugned order is an order dated 18.8.2012 dismissing an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the petitioner/tenant whereby petitioner/tenant wants inter alia to bring on record the subsequent events that flat nos.[3] and 6 (first floor) situated in 1, Doctor’s Lane, Gole Market, New Delhi have been de-sealed by the NDMC and hence would be available to the respondent/tenant. This application has been dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller by referring to the fact that earlier also similar application was moved under Section 151 CPC which was dismissed. I may note that order dated 19.4.2011 dismissing the earlier application under Section 151 CPC by the Additional Rent Controller was challenged by the petitioner/tenant before this Court in CM(M) No. 835/2011 but this CM(M) was dismissed on 19.10.2011.

5. It is not for this Court to examine the merits of the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by a learned single judge of this Court by which the petition of the present petitioner being CM(M) No. 835/2011 was dismissed and which had challenged the order dated 19.4.2011 dismissing the application under Section 151 CPC of the petitioner/tenant for taking the same subsequent events now again pleaded to be taken on record qua flat nos. 3 and 6. Therefore, once finality has been achieved to this issue that the aspect of desealing of flat nos. 3 and 6 cannot be looked into for deciding the leave to defend application, I sitting as a Single Judge of this Court cannot hold that I am not bound by that order dated 19.10.2011 passed in CM(M) No.835/2011. To complete the narration in this regard it is necessary to state that the present petitioner had challenged the order dated 19.10.2011 passed in CM(M) No. 835/2011 by means of an SLP in the Supreme Court, but that SLP bearing no. 35118/2011 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 5.1.2012. Therefore, the endeavour of the petitioner to again rake up all the similar issues of the availability of the flat nos. 3 and 6 is a sheer abuse of the process of law.

6. For the sake of record I may state, and as already observed above, that, respondent company has already stated in the eviction petition that even if flat nos. 3 and 6 are available, the same will suffice to only partially shifting the business of the respondent/landlord company. Surely, if a company is very large, and it needs large portions of premises, there would be a bonafide need, and a tenant cannot for one frivolous reason or the other keep on delaying and dragging the disposal of the leave to defend application and hence the bonafide necessity eviction petition.

7. In the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC besides the petitioner wanting to incorporate reference to flat nos. 3 and 6, petitioner also sought to include reference to one shop and one flat namely flat no.1A and shop no. 9 in the same property. As regard these facts it is required to be noted that so far as the subsequent events which take place after the period of 15 days for filing of the leave to defend application is concerned, possibly courts as per the facts and circumstances of a case may entertain such an application for bringing on record the subsequent events, however, so far as facts and events which exist prior to expiry of 15 days statutory period of filing of leave to defend application is concerned, anything and everything qua such facts and events must necessarily be stated within the statutory period of 15 days of filing of the leave to defend application inasmuch as it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15, that a delay in filing of the leave to defend application cannot be condoned even for one day beyond 15 days ie after the period of 15 days no fact can be added by amending of the leave to defend application because that will amount to considering facts and documents after the period of 15 days prescribed for filing of the leave to defend application. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ms. Madhu Gupta Vs. M/s Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd. 184 (2011) DLT 103 by applying the ratio in the case of Prithpal Singh’s case (supra) has held that no amendment can be permitted to a leave to defend application as that will destroy the sanctity of the statutory 15 days period which period has been held cannot be extended vide Prithpal Singh’s case (supra).

8. Therefore, since it is not the case of the petitioner that flat nos. 1A and shop no.9 have fallen vacant after the period of 15 days of filing of the leave to defend application viz. they are events and facts prior to happening of the 15 days period of filing of the leave to defend application such facts cannot be permitted to be added by means of amendment in view of the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ms. Madhu Gupta (supra).

9. A reading of the aforesaid facts shows that the petitioner/tenant is grossly abusing the process of law. The matter with respect to flat nos. 3 and 6 achieved finality in terms of the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 19.10.2011 in CM(M) No. 835/2011 and which order was sustained by the Supreme Court when the SLP of the petitioner was dismissed on 5.1.2012. Petitioner however does not want to stop filing repeated petitions/applications and which is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law.

10. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed with actual costs. Respondent will file an affidavit of its authorized official accompanied by certificate of fees which its advocates have received with respect to this petition, within a period of four weeks, and fees paid by the respondent to its advocates for the present petition will be costs which shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. Costs shall be paid after a period of four weeks of receiving of the affidavit of costs to be filed by the respondent. While dismissing this petition, the Additional Rent Controller is directed to ensure that the leave to defend application of the respondent is positively heard and decided within a period of two months of the receipt of copy of the present order.

AUGUST 27, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J ib