M/S. MODERN LAMINATORS PVT. LTD. v. M/S. HANUMAN HOSIERY MILLS

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. +C.M. (M) No.644/2014 and C.M. No.10878/2014 (stay)

2. Tenants who contest the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by owner/landlord with respect to premises which are outside the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 use every tactic in the book and not in the book, to delay 2014:DHC:3223 and drag the suit for possession. This present petition is one such tactic adopted by the tenant.

3. The challenge is to an order by which the court below has disposed of an application of petitioner/defendant for framing additional issues by observing that whatever aspects or issues which the petitioner/defendant/tenant is seeking to get framed under Order 14 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), are already covered under the issues framed. Therefore really there remained no grievance of the petitioner. In any case, clarification given by the court below in the impugned order was only as a matter of abundant caution because in every suit for possession filed by an owner/landlord for recovery of possession, with respect to premises outside the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), three aspects are required to be proved. First aspect is of the plaintiff being the owner/landlord, second of the premises being outside the operation of the Act and thirdly that the tenancy has been terminated. The issues already framed cover these aspects. Therefore, not only the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC need not have been filed by the petitioner/defendant, in any case the clarification given at internal page 4 of the impugned order that whatever defences which the petitioner/defendant wanted to urge are already included in the existing issues, shows that no grievance remained of the petitioner/defendant, yet, the petition for understandable reasons is not satisfied.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant next contended that the court below by the impugned order has restricted evidence of the petitioner to be not of more than three witnesses, however, this submission is a perverted reading of the impugned order because the impugned order only states that fees of the Local Commissioner is upto Rs.15,000/- for maximum of three witnesses i.e if there are more than three witnesses, fees of the Local Commissioner will be more. That is all. No order is thus passed that petitioner can lead evidence of only these witnesses.

5. I may state that CPC was amended in the year 2002 whereby in order to expedite the trial, courts under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC were entitled to appoint Local Commissioner to record the evidence. This case was a fit case where the Local Commissioner was directed to record evidence, in order to expedite the decision in the case.

6. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues before this Court that Courts have no power to compensate the Local Commissioner for recording of evidence because this is not provided under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. It is also argued that there is no other provision in the CPC to give compensation to Local Commissioner to record evidence.

(ii) In my opinion, I have yet to hear a more frivolous argument than the argument which is urged, and this argument being totally misconceived is rejected.

7. In view of the above, the present petition is a misconceived petition and an abuse of the process of law and is hence dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- which shall be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today. Deposit of costs shall be a condition precedent to the petitioner pursuing his defence before the trial Court. I wish I could have imposed more costs to send a strict message against filing of frivolous petitions, but, I cannot do so because the respondent is not appearing. It is however high time that message be sent out to the litigating public that judicial process is meant to be used and not abused. JULY 11, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne