Vikas Mudgal v. Maya Devi

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. This is a writ petition filed by Mr. Vikas Mudgal- the Petitioner against Ms. Maya Devi- the Respondent. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner has taken a property on rent from the Respondent bearing address No. 1151, 1st Floor, Shora Kothi, Ghanta Ghar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 at a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. It is the claim of the Petitioner- tenant that he has also paid the pagdi amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the said property.

3. The Respondent landlady filed a suit seeking eviction, suit for possession, permanent injunction, recovery of arrears and profits titled as ‘Maya Devi v. Vikas Mudgal’ at the Tiz Hazari Court, Delhi. It has been stated that the said suit was dismissed. In the said suit, the tenant took a defense that the civil suit was barred without obtaining a No-Objection Certificate (hereinafter ‘NOC’) from the slum clearance authority. In order to obtain the said NOC and permission for filing of the suit, the landlady preferred a petition under Section 19(a) of The Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter ‘1956 Act’). In the said proceedings, the evidence by way of affidavit was filed and at that stage the tenant moved an application seeking summoning of the following witnesses:

“I. Alhmed of the court of Sh. P.K. Mattu POLC, Dwarka with case file bearing No. 881/16, titled as Vikas Mudgal Vs. Richi Rich Rest.(P) Ltd.

II. Alhmed of the court of Sh. Mayank Mittal CJ, Tis

Hazari Court, with case file bearing No. Old 49/18 New No. 268/18 titled as Vikas Mudgal Vs. Maya Devi and case filed bearing No. C.S. 713/16 titled as Vikas Mudgal Vs. Maya Devi.

III. Record Clerk

Through Incharge Record room Civil, Tis Hazari Court With regard of case file bearing Goshwara No. 145 RC Central case No. 112/18 New No. 574/18 titled as Vikas Mudgal Vs. Maya Devi decided on 01.05.18 Ghoswara No. 12 R.C. Central, Caes No. DR-207/18 New No. 1175/18 titled as Vikas Mudgal Vs. Maya Devi decided on 17.09.18 decided by Shirish Aggarwal A.R.C., Tis Hazari Court.

IV. Alhmed of the court of Sh. Shirish Aggarwal A.R.C.

Central Delhi, with record of case file bearing No. DR-316/18 New No. 199 titled as Vikas Mudgal Vs. Maya Devi ON 19.01.19 and case filed bearing DR NO. 34-19 titled as Vikas Mudgal Vs. Maya Devi next date of hearing 16.04.19.”

4. This application was rejected by the concerned authority vide order dated 28th May, 2019. In the said order, the authority came to the conclusion that no grounds are made for summoning the said witnesses. The observations made in the said order are extracted below: “The applicant wants to summon concerned officials along with documents but the necessity and relevance of such witness/documents is not disclosed. The respondent has not disclosed what important facts he wants to bring on record and how those facts are essential to prove his case. No specific fact(s)/ground(s) have been mentioned by the respondent in the application. In my view, the grounds taken by the respondent in the present application and during the course of the arguments are not sufficient to permit him to summon the witnesses and, therefore, the application is dismissed.”

5. Thereafter, the tenant filed an appeal against the said order to the Financial Commissioner in the appeal under Section 30 of the 1956 Act. The relevant observations of the order dated 7th November, 2022 issued by the Financial Commissioner are: “5.Heard both the sides on 05.07.2022. The material/documents on record were also perused. Both the parties were also given opportunity to file additional documents/written submission, if any within four weeks. However, no written submissions were received from the respondent. Accordingly, the contentions of the parties already on record were considered while passing the orders.

6. The documents on record and the impugned orders dated 28.05.2019 are seen. The appellant case is that the appellant wishes to summon officials of the Court as mentioned in detail in the impugned orders. The appellant wanted to examine the Court officials and the impugned orders very clearly brought out that the appellant did not clarify or disclose the necessity or relevance of such witnesses. In any case, Court documents are available to the parties concerned and the appellant could have very well relied upon the copies of the documents by filing and supporting the same. To stretch the argument and take the plea to summon the official of the Court in another proceedings, cannot be held as relevant. It is for the appellant to prove his case and not to lean on Court officials to prove his case especially in terms of the facts of the present appeal.

7. No cogent reason is made out by the appellant against the impugned orders and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost”

6. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner/tenant is entitled to summon the official witnesses for the purposes of proving its case before the slum authority.