Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board v. Randhir Singh & Anr

1. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (erstwhile Slum and JJ Department) is aggrieved by the three orders; i.e. the order dated 10.01.2011; order dated 09.08.2010 and also seeks a stay of the order dated 04.03.2011. Relevant would it be at the outset to state that in none of the orders, the petitioner was a party.

2. Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by respondent No. 1/landlord (Randhir Singh) seeking eviction of his 2013:DHC:2071 tenant respondent No. 2/tenant (Smt. Lajwanti) under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRCA) from the premise No. F- 574, Shakurpur, JJ Colony, Delhi. This property comprised of one room, kitchen and verandah (tenanted premises).

3. This eviction petition had been decreed in favour of the landlord on 07.08.2007.

4. The appeal filed by the tenant had been dismissed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) on 08.02.2008.

5. The tenant preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which was dismissed by the High Court on 31.03.2008.

6. Execution proceedings were filed by the landlord.

7. Meanwhile, the tenant approached the Supreme Court in SLP

(Civil) No. 23820/2002. The same was dismissed on 13.10.2008. The order of the Supreme Court reads herein as under:- “UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner is, however, granted time till 30th April, 2009, to vacate the premises in question upon filing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today. It is directed that in case the petitioner fails to vacate the premises in question within the aforesaid time, it would be open to the concerned authority to take steps for securing vacant possession of the premises in question. In case for delivery of possession any armed force is necessary, the same shall be deputed by the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police within forty eight hours from the date requisition is received therefore. It is also directed that in case anybody else, other than the petitioner, is found in possession, he shall also be dispossessed from the premises in question.”

8. It is on the basis of this order that this petition has been filed. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the “concerned authority” referred to in the order of the Supreme Court makes a reference to the present petitioner; further submission being that the tenant/Lajwanti had in fact handed over the suit premises to him but in the course of the execution proceedings, the impugned order dated 04.03.2011 has issued warrants of possession qua this property against the petitioner which order is now the subject matter of the present petition.

9. The other orders impugned before this Court is the order dated 09.08.2010 and 10.01.2011 which were also passed in the course of the execution proceedings.

10. It is in this background that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have to be appreciated.

11. Admittedly the petitioner was never a party in the proceeding initiated by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2 under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA in any forum i.e. either before the ARC or before the ARCT. Even in the proceedings before the High Court he was never a party. His submission is that he was represented in the Supreme Court. What was his stand in the Supreme Court has not been explained. Admittedly there was no written document qua the stand of the petitioner before the Supreme Court. His submissions are only based on oral pleas; oral plea being that he in fact is the authority in control over the disputed land; he had allotted this land to one Brij Lal S/o Sh Mahadev who in turn had allotted it to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 has no legal title to the said premises. He could not have let out the premises. His whole submission is bordered on this oral plea which did not find favour before any Court as he was never a party in any of these courts.

12. This petition appears to be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and that too, by a Government department. If the petitioner has any claim over the disputed land, he could exercise his right through an independent legal forum. At the inception of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner had in fact been advised to take his appropriate legal remedy but he has chosen to address his arguments at length.

13. Reliance upon 103 (2003) DLT 654 Wazirpur Bartan Nirmata Sangh Vs. Union of India & Others and the directions contained in para 48 (1) do not in any manner help his case. In this case, the policy of the Government regarding relocation of jhuggi dwellers had been quashed and certain directions had been given to the Government. As already pointed out, if the petitioner has any valid claim to the disputed land, nothing prevents him from taking his independent legal remedy; he however upon merits pressing the present petition in which he has no locus standi.

14. Petition being an abuse of the process of the Court is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee.