Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
SITA RAM ….. Petitioner
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Advocate.
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Lalit Gupta, Mr. Siddharth Arora and Mr. Rakshit Goyal, Advocates , Advocate.
Allowed subject to just exception.
Review)
2020:DHC:3536
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Subject review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 05.12.2019 allegedly based on recent facts and exceptional circumstances.
3. Respondent had filed the subject eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity of the subject premises.
4. By judgment dated 01.05.2019 the application filed by the petitioner/tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition was dismissed and an eviction order was passed.
5. Petitioner filed the present petition impugning judgment dated 01.05.2019.
6. On 05.12.2019 petitioner unconditionally withdrew this petition and undertook to vacate and hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent on or before 04.06.2020 subject to filing an undertaking.
7. Consequent to the undertaking of the petitioner given on 05.12.2019, this Court dismissed the petition and granted time to the petitioner till 04.06.2020 to vacate the premises subject to filing an affidavit of undertaking.
8. The affidavit of undertaking in terms of order dated 05.12.2019 was filed by the petitioner on 18.12.2019. RC.REV.614/2019 Page 3
9. It may be pertinent to note that one day prior to expiry of the period granted to vacate, petitioner filed an application on 03.06.2020 being CM 11883/2020 seeking extension of time till 05.12.2020 to vacate the premises.
10. On 05.06.2020, during the hearing before this Court it was contended by the petitioner that no affidavit of undertaking pursuant to order dated 05.12.2019 had been filed.
11. On it being pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that the affidavit of undertaking was filed and was on record, an application being CM 12061/2020 was filed seeking to amend the contention in CM 11883/2020 that no affidavit of undertaking has been filed, was filed before this Court.
12. The contention of the petitioner had been that because of the pandemic he could not make an alternative arrangement and accordingly could not vacate on or before 04.06.2020. He accordingly sought extension of time till 05.12.2020.
13. Respondents in the meantime on 08.07.2020, filed a petition seeking initiation of contempt against the petitioner for having breached the undertaking given to this Court being Cont.Cas(C) 340/2020.
14. Faced with the possibility of facing contempt petitioner filed the present review petition on 01.10.2020. RC.REV.614/2019 Page 4
15. The contention raised in the review petition is that certain facts have come to the knowledge of the petitioner with regard to respondent having started a real estate business in January, 2019 and also that he had transferred a property in favour of an HUF in the year 2016 to create artificial bonafide need and the said property had fallen vacant in May-June, 2020. Further it is alleged that there are several other properties which are available to the respondent.
16. Perusal of the review petition shows that petitioner seeks to reagitate the issues which were raised by him in his leave to defend application and were rejected.
17. It may be observed that the petitioner had unconditionally withdrawn the present petition, impugning the order declining to grant leave to defend and had undertaken to vacate the premises on or before 04.06.2020. Even after 04.06.2020 the petitioner had been only seeking extension of time.
18. Clearly the effort on the part of the petitioner is to stall the recovery of possession by the landlord of the subject premises.
19. Another factor that may be noticed is that at the time when the petitioner withdrew the petition the respondent had waived off his claim for damages for use and occupation and had only accepted to receive rent at the agreed rate of rent of Rs.66.17/- per month.
20. Since the petitioner had unconditionally withdrawn this petition, he cannot be permitted to re-agitate his petition or his RC.REV.614/2019 Page 5 application for leave to defend especially when the application is filed after the expiry of the period granted to vacate the premises. It may be noticed that as on date, even the extended time sought by him in his application i.e. till 05.12.2020 is over.
21. No ground is made out for recalling or review of order dated 05.12.2019.
22. The Review petition and the subject applications are accordingly dismissed.
23. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. DECEMBER 09, 2020