Suraj Mant v. BSES

1. This is a Criminal Revision Petition u/s 401 Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 11th October, 2013 passed by Sh. Narinder Kumar, learned ASJ, Tis Hazari Courts and the judgment dated 6t11 May, 2013 and sentence dated 21St June, 2013 passed by Sh. Devender Kumar Sharma, ACMM, Tis Hazari, Delhi.

2. Counsel for the respondent has placed on record copy of the orders passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Gaur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 323/2013 and Cr[1]. M.(B) No. 1154/2013 titled Ram Gopal vs. Stale & Anr., where in substantially similar circumstances, the petition was dismissed being without any merit. However, time was granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. 4 3. A perusal of the impugned judgment goes to show that both the courts below have returned a finding that the petitioners were employed in the employment of Delhi Vidyut Board, the predecessor in interest of respondents and were allotted residential accommodation. Despite cessation of their services, they did not vacate the premises and are occupying the same unauthorizedly. Penalty has been imposed upon the petitioners on account of their unauthorized occupation of the said premises and in case, the petitioners fail to vacate the said quarter within the prescribed period and to deposit the fine, then they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a prescribed period.

4. The Appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 11th October, 2013 has dismissed the appeal affirming the petitioners' conviction and sentence, however, time was granted to the petitioners to vacate the quarter till 2nd December, 2013. Challenge to the impugned order by the leaned counsel for the petitioner is on the ground that the respondent is not the owner of the property. The flat was constructed under Low Income Group Housing Scheme and were allotted to the petitioners under that scheme.

5. To controvert the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the notification dated 20th November, 2009, and that this aspect of the matter has already been considered by the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court has observed that as provided under Section 116 of F[1] the Evidence Act, appellants cannot be permitted to deny the relationship of licensor or licensee in respect of quarter in question and to say that the complainant company has instituted the complaint without any right.

6. The aforesaid finding does not suffer from any infirmity which calls for any interference. The petitions came up for hearing before this Court on 2nd December, 2013 and when the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench was placed on record by the counsel for the respondent, counsel for the petitioners, in fact, submitted that they do not press the revision petitions on merits but sought time to vacate the premises. As such, in order to give the undertaking, petitioners were directed to be present. Although, today they have appeared, however, they sought time to vacate the premises by 31St March, 2014 and further that the fine imposed upon them be waived. There is no ground for waiver of the fine imposed upon them. Moreover, respondent was not agreeable to give time to the petitioner till 3lS March, 2014. That being so, the undertaking could not be recorded.

7. Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, the petitions are dismissed being without any merit. However, the petitioners are granted time up to 31 St January, 2014 to vacate the premises in question and in case, they fail to do so, then Trial Court shall ensure that petitioners undergo the sentence awarded.

8. The petitions and the applications stand disposed of. Jt41_ 1'i-' SUNITA GUPTA, J DECEMBER 03, 2013 rs /. -f[4],. JM12._____