Amrit Lal Shukla v. Harish Kumar

1. By the present petition, the petitioners seek to impugn the order dated 24.05.2016 passed by the ARC.

2. By the said order, the ARC allowed the application of the respondents under Section 25-B (4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) for leave to contest.

3. I have already dealt with similar order passed in an earlier matter. RC.REV. 433-434 & 412/2016 Pagel 2016:DHC:9343

4. Reference may be had to the judgment of this court in the case of 'Jiwan Lai Berry & Sons (HUF) v. Naresh Dass Khanna\ decided on 24.08.2016 in RC.REV No.189/2016. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: "3. The ARC by the impugned order has noted the contentions of the respondent/tenant. Having noted the said contentions, the order concludes that the respondent is able to raise triable issues regarding the availability of the sufficient accommodation with the petitioner and also about the bona fide requirement of the suit premises by him. Hence, the order concludes that triable issues have arisen between the parties.

4. The court did not record the submission of the petitioner. The court did not come to a conclusion based on the pleadings as to whether a triable issue has been raised or not. It merely noted the submissions of the respondent and formed its conclusion that a triable issue is raised.

5. In a somewhat similar case, this court in the case of Sarwan Dass Bange vs. Ram Prakash, MANU/DE/0204/2010 noted the impugned orders as follows:-

RC.REV. 433-434 & 412/2016 Page 2 o

6. This court thereafter stated as follows:-

affidavit filed therewith and to see whether the tenant has given any facts/particulars which require to be established by evidence and which if established would disentitle the landlord from an order of eviction. The test is not of the tenant having controverted/denied the claim of the landlord and thus disputed questions of fact arising; the test is to examine the pleas of facts and then to determine the impact thereof"

7. Clearly, the impugned order has been passed in a cursory manner and contrary to law. Accordingly, the present impugned order is set aside."

5. Apart from the above, I may note that while passing an order a court is obliged to give reasons. Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract &Leasing, Kota V. Shukla & Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785, held as follows: "The Supreme Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice.A litigant who approaches the court withany grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant of RC.REV. 433-434 &412/2016 Page 3 or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the sole of orders. Nonrecording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the court must reflect what weighed with the court in granting or declining the reliefclaimed by the applicant."

6. In the present case, perusal of the impugned order shows that the order does not give reasons for its conclusion.

7. I pass the same order in the present petition. The impugned order is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the ARC to re-hear the argument on the application of the respondents for seeking leave to contest the matter. The ARC may dispose ofthe application within three months from today.