Full Text
Date of Decision: 17th January, 2013
IQBAL AHMED ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Sudhir Kumar and Mr.Anish Shresta, Advs. with petitioner in person.
Through : Mr.B.B.Gupta and Mr.Anshul Mittal, Advs.
RC.Rev. No.345/2012
JUDGMENT
1. Eviction Petition No.281/2010 was filed against the present petitioner by the respondents seeking his eviction from Premises No.1681 (entire ground floor), Gali Shaban, Mohalla Rodgran, Lal Kuan, Delhi-110006. The petitioner filed application seeking leave to defend on the various grounds mentioned in the application. 2013:DHC:306
2. By impugned order dated 23.04.2012, while dismissing the application seeking leave to defend, the eviction order was passed against the petitioner in respect of the premises shown red in the site plan Ex.C-1 clarifying that eviction order shall not become executable before expiry of six months from the date of order.
3. By filing the present revision petition, the petitioner made prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 23.04.2012 and allowing the application filed by the petitioner for leave to defend and contest the eviction petition.
4. On 27.07.2012, when the petition came up for hearing before this Court, Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner sought time from the Court to seek instructions and as prayed, it was re-notified for 31.07.2012.
5. On 31.07.2012, when the matter was taken up by this Court, on instructions, the submissions made by Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner were recorded in the proceedings. Since it has direct bearing to the outcome of this petition, it is necessary to extract the proceedings dated 31.07.2012 as recorded in this petition: ‘31.07.2012 Counsel for the petitioner, on instruction of the petitioner and also his son present in court today states that the petitioner confines his petition only to the ground of seeking time for vacation and does not press this petition on merits. Limited to this extent, notice be issued to the respondents on petitioner taking steps within a week, returnable on 30.8.2012.’
6. On issuance of notice by this Court, respondents put in appearance through counsel. Though, the matter was listed for 16.01.2013, in between CM No.18510/2012 was filed by the petitioner praying for stay against eviction and while dealing with CM No.18510/2012 on 02.11.2012, this Court directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted in pursuance of the eviction order dated 23.04.2012 till next date of hearing i.e. 16.01.2013 and matter was ordered to be listed before the Roster Bench on 16.01.2013, date already fixed in the matter.
7. On 16.01.2013, when the matter was came up for hearing, Mr.Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the wife of the petitioner had expired and petitioner needs some time to vacate the suit premises. He requested some time to place on record the period required by the petitioner to perform last rites of his wife and permission to stay in the premises till that date.
8. Considering the request of the petitioner, he was directed to do the needful by next date i.e. 17.01.2013.
9. On 16.01.2013, after the matter was adjourned to enable the petitioner to place on record his prayer specifying the period required by the petitioner to perform the last rituals of his wife necessitating his stay in the premises till that time, an affidavit was filed during the course of the day.
10. The averments made in this affidavit dated 16.01.2013 are such that not only the finding of learned Addl. Rent Controller in the impugned order but also the very sanctity of the Court proceedings including the submissions made before this Court, have been tried to be questioned by the petitioner. The contents of the affidavit are to the effect that:-
(i) Now he has instructed his counsel to request this Court to hear the petition on merits;
(ii) He is staying in the suit premises alongwith his family for the last
63 years and very bonafidely, he is paying rent of each month to landlord Mr.Nasirul Haq, S/o Wahiddudi, R/o 2648/A, Mohhalla Niyaryan, Behind GB Road, Delhi-110006 and he is ready to vacate the premises in favour of Mr.Nasirul Haq;
(iii) His wife Shaheen Iqbal has expired on 29.11.2012 and many rituals are to be performed including one ritual of 40 days which difficulty was explained to this Court also; and
(iv) The petitioner needs time upto March, 2013 to vacate the premises and to find out suitable accommodation for the family.
11. The grievance of learned counsel for the respondent is that respondents have full sympathy with the petitioner on demise of his wife. They have every intention to extend the time of stay of the petitioner till the last rituals of his wife are performed by the petitioner but what has emerged from the affidavit is that he wants to handover the possession not to respondents but to Mr.Nasirul Haq, who is a third party. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that once eviction order has not been challenged on merits and the impugned order is in favour of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be permitted to have extension of time also and at the same time, handover the possession to third party. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that in the given circumstances, the petitioner cannot challenge the finding of learned Addl. Rent Controller on merits and his petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. On behalf of petitioner, Mr.Sudhir Kumar, Advocate has submitted that petitioner never instructed his counsel Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate to make any statement before the Court that he does not press his petition on merits. Mr.Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the contents of affidavit are correct and the petitioner has no intention to withdraw the contents of para 3 of the affidavit wherein he has claimed his tenancy under Mr.Nasirul Haq and had desire to handover the possession only to Mr.Nasirul Haq. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the circumstances, the petitioner may get the eviction order executed to seek possession.
13. Perusal of the impugned order shows that after dealing with the title of the landlord and existence of relationship with the tenant, in para 10 of the impugned order, learned Addl. Rent Controller held as under: ‘10. In view of the above discussions and as the sale deed in favour of the father of the petitioner and the mutation of the property in question in the name of father of the petitioner, therefore, I am of the considered view that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Accordingly this ingredient is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.’
14. Perusal of RC Rev. No.345/2012 shows that the petitioner has filed this petition through Mr.C.P.Wig and Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocates. So there cannot be any quarrel by the petitioner on the issue that Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate is not the counsel of the petitioner.
15. The proceedings dated 31.07.2012 (which have been extracted above) reveal that Mr.Rajat Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner, only after seeking instructions from the petitioner as well his son, present in the Court on that date, made submissions before the Court that petitioner does not press this petition on merits. In view of the submissions made by the petitioner and his son through their counsel seeking some time for vacation, the Court issued notice to the respondent only limited to that extent. Now by virtue of this affidavit, the petitioner cannot be permitted to abuse the process of law by disowning the statement made before the Court by his counsel on instructions but also the submissions made before this Court yesterday limited to the extent that some more time may be given to him to vacate the premises. Now the petitioner cannot be allowed to backtrack to claim that proceedings dated 31.07.2012 are without instructions or even to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and expressing desire to handover the possession to third party despite the fact that eviction order dated 23.04.2012 remains unchallenged and has attained finality.
16. The eviction order has been passed on 23.04.2012. Thereafter six months time has also expired. On one pretext or other, the petitioner has been able to gain time to stay in the premises and respondents did not file execution in the hope that possession shall be handed over peacefully by the petitioner after seeking extension of reasonable time.
17. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, by adopting various tactics, the petitioner has already been able to avoid execution of the impugned order by keeping the landlord under the impression that peaceful possession would be handedover. In view of his conduct, as reflected above, I do not find any ground for grant of any further extension to the petitioner. The petition is hereby dismissed. CM Nos.12728/2012, 16815/2012, 16816/2012 and 18510/2012 in RC Rev. No.345/2012 Since the RC Rev. No.345/2012 has been dismissed, the pending applications have become infructuous and the same are hereby dismissed as having become infructuous.