Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co Ltd & Anr v. Tejinder Singh

INDERMEET KAUR, J. For order see CM(M) No.1158/2011. •P February 23, 2012 rb INDERMEET KAUR, J Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. » •• IN THE HIGH COCRT OF DELHI,AT NEW DELHI • •• Date ofJudgment:23.0-2.2012 + CM(M) i:i58/2011andCMNo.18454-56/2011&19678/2011 • MODI SPn^ING &WEAVING ' TV/TTT TQPO TTF) ' retltlOIlGr • Through; Mr.A.K.Matta,Sr. Adv. withMr.- AvijeetBhujbai,Advocate. + versiis KBISHNAWANTI(SINCEDECD)&ANR ..^Rrapondents Through; Mr.SandeepSethi,Sr: Adv.with Mr.PrashantoChandraSen, Advocate. CONT.CAS(C)792/2011&CMNos.l9707-08/20ir MODI SPINNING&WEAVINGMILLS ppt^t^oners COXtB^ANR M.A.K.Matta.St.Aa^;W^«. AvijeetBhujVal,Advocate. •' versus tejinderSINGH, ' Through; Mr.SandeepSetthi,Sr. Adv. with Mr.Prashanto Chandra Sen, Advocate HON'BLEMS. JUSTICEINDERMEETKAUR ... • irNimTCRMEETKAUR,J. (Oral) • • ' i ' . ' - i: This ordershalldisposeoftwo petitionswhichhavebeenfiled% •CM (M) No. 1158/2011&ContCas.792/2011 Page! of19 A-fte tenant-M/s.Modi Spinningand weavingMills Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referredto as 'thetenant')againstthe impugnedorder oftheAdditional •Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) dated 10.08.2011.-Two petitions have been filed as they relate to two differentportionsof the suit premises; the bungalowis propertybearingNo. G-11, MaharaniBagh,New Delhi.• These proceedings-have in fact arisen from the eviction petitions E13/1997 and E 14/1997; E 14/1997 relates to the tenanted portion comprising2-1/2 storeyed bungalowconsistingof one drawing room, one dining room, one bed room, one kitchen with pantry, store and. bathroomon the groundfloor, three bed rooms with attachedbaths and verandahas also-open terraceon the first floor and one bed room with attachedbathroomand open terraceon the secondfloor along with the open firont lawn. EvictionPetitionNo. E-13/1997relatesto the tenanted portion described as one garage situated on the right hand side of annexee building, besides two quarters/roomsalongwith the bathroom and the verandah on the second floor of the annexe buildingand the entirelawn atthe backside ofthe bungalow,as also the tube well inthe • lefthand cornernearthe northernboundary-wall ofthis bungalow.

¶2The saidtwo petitionswerefiledunderSection14(l)(b)(h)and (j) CM (M) No. 1158/2011&ContCas.792/2011 Page2ofl9 ofthe Delhi Rent ControlAct (DRCA). By a commonjudgmentdated

30.07,2005prayers-forevictionunder Section 14(l)(b) and (j) of the DRCAwere 4ismissed; ARC had howeverdecreedthe evictionpetition under Section 14(l)(h) of the DRCA. '

¶3Relevantwoulditbeto statethatbeforethe Rent Controller there •were two'personsarrayed as tenants. M/s. Modi Overseas had been arrayedas respondentNo. 1andhad been describedas the tenant,it was ' • statedto be adivisionofthe Company-M/s.Modi Spinning&Weaving ' . , Mills Co; Ltd. who-had been described as an independent entity- . incorporatedunder the Indian Com.paniesAct and had been arrayedas respondentNo. '2. Acommon writtenstatementwas filed by both the respondents.

¶4Afterthe ARC had decreedthe evictionpetitionsofthe landlord ... under Section 14(l)(h) of the DRCA , M/s. Modi Overseas had preferredan appealbeforethe RCT;the samewas dismissedby the RCT on 06.12.2006holding the same to be not maintainableas M/s Modi . Overseaswas not an independententitybut onlyadivisionofM/s. Modi ' Spinning&WeavingMills Co. Ltd. ApetitionunderArticle227 ofthe • Constitutionof /Indiawas prefen-edagainstthis order dated'06.12.2006 - CM (M) No. 1158/2011•& ContCas.792/2011 .Page3ofl9 in CM (M) No. 652/2007by M/s. Modi Overseaswhichwas withdrawn on 09.09.2009. The relevant extract of the order of the High Court reads as under;- . "After some arguments on instructionsf-om the petitioner and the instructingcounselfor the petitioner,Mr. RavinderSethi, learnedSenior ' Advocate, states that the petitionerwouldwithdraw thispetitionersubject to the respondent/landlordnot executing-the eviction order against the petitioneron the ground that the appealpreferredby the petitionerhas been dismissed and on the landlord undertaking that they shall await to decisionofthe appealspreferredby M/s ModiSpinningand WeedingMills Limited which are pending before the Rent Conti'ol Tribunal,'Mr. Sethi states'that the-petitionershall henceforthnot contend in anv proceedinss • • that'the,veiitionerM/s Modi Overseas is a legally independententity. He furtherstates that the petitioneracceptsthe positionthat it is a divisionof M/s Modi Svinnins and WeavimMills Limited. Learned counselfor the respondent/landlordMr. Vasishtundertakeson behalfofhis clientthat the respondentshallnot executethe evictionorderagainstthepetitioner,which is onlya divisionofM/s ModiSpinningand WeavingMillsLimitedtillsuch . ' time as the evictionorderpassedagainstM/s Modi Spinningand Weaving Mills Limited attains finality. Ln vieM' ofthe aforesaidstatements,whichshallcontinueto bindtheparties, the petition stands disposed off. The appeals preferred by M/s Modi Spinningand WeavingMillsLimitedshallbe heardby the Tribunaloh their merits."

¶5Thereafter,the RCT videjudgmentdated 10.08.2011endorsedthe findings of the ARC dated 30.07.2005 holding-that the landlord is CM (-M) No. 1158/2011&ContCas.792/2011 Page4ofl9 entitled to a decree of eviction under Section 14(l)(h) of the DRCA. This judgment is the subject matter of the present petition. .

6.- Vehement arguments have been addressed by the respective-parties. On behalfof the petitionera first submissionhas -again beeiii made that M/s. Modi Overseas is a distinct entity and in fact it was a 'tenant' and falls within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the DRCA; in this view of the matter the impugned judgment decreeing the eviction petition against M/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co, Ltd/ suffers- ' from an illegality. This submission of the petitioner is worthy of no merit as the extract of the order of the High Court (reproduced supra) is clear and categorical; M/s. Modi Overseas had given up its' right to. contest the appeal and it.was M/s. Modi Spinriing & Weaving'Mills Co. Ltd. which had-been, granted permission to contest the appeal pending before RCT..This argument has thus not been pressed any further.

¶7The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a petition under Section 14(l)(h) of the^ DRCA was in fact, not . maintainable; eviction petition was admittedly filed on 28.01.1997; the averments contained^'in the eviction petition are to the effect that the tenant has acquired an alternate accommodationwhich is a property at CM (M) No. 1158/2011 Sc Cont Cas.792/2011 ' Page5-ofl9 • 12 Friends Colony (West), New Delhi; this was a limited tenancy created under Section 21 of the DRCA; further contention being that .the second alternate accommodation at 46 Friends Colony (East), New Delhi has also been acquired by the tenant which was again a limited tenancy equated under Section 21 of the DRCA; submission of the tenant being that these premises had admittedly been acquired by the tenant on 07.08.1977 and on 01.11.1980 respectively but the same were retuned back to the landlord on 09.09.1995 and 31.07.1996 respectively and although admittedly this did not form a part of the defence of the. • tenant in his written statement filed before ARC; yet before the RCT the landlord through his counsel had made a categorical statement which . .was to the effect that'on the date of the filing of the eviction petition (which was, on 08.09.1997) these alternate preniises- [i.e. 12 Friends Colony (West) & 46 Friends Colony (East)] were no longer with the tenant. This statement reads as under:-• I • ' • "STATEMENT , •

07.11.2009 - • . • Statement of ShKalka Prasad Aggarwal, Advocate for the legal heirs ofRespondent No.1 without oath. '• "J do not dispute that the appellant had vacated the premises • I No.12, Friends Colony (West) New Delhi and 46,. Friends Colony CM (M) No. 1158/2011 &ContCas.792/2011 Page6ofl9 •. /•

(East), New Delhi, that the saidpremises were vacated before the institutionofthe evictionpetitionout ofwhich thepresentappeal,has arisen. " Submissionbeingthat on the date ofthe filingofevictionpetition (28.01.1997)therewas no caus.eofactionqua the provisionsofSection 14(l)(h)of the DRCA as, the aforenotedtwo premises at 12, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi,and 46, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi had already been returnedback to the respectivelandlords;,they were no-longerwith.the tenant; actionunder Section14(l)(h)ofthe DRCA Avas not available; both,the courts below endorsingthis finding have "thus committedan illegality. To support this submissionthe learned counselfor the petitionerhas.placedrehanceupon the judgmentofthe Apex Court reported as GdnvatRam Sharma & Ors. v^.•Gavatri Devi reported in 1987 (3) SCC 576: attentionhas been drawn to para 21; facts ofthe said case have also been advertedto; submissionbeingthat only in' the peculiar circumstancesof that case where the alternate allotmentsstill remainedconstructivelyin possessionof the tenantthat such an order was passed.' CM (M) No. 1158/2011&ContCas.792/2011 •. Page7ofl9 Vu ' Second submissionurged by the learned counselfor the petitioner is that the evictionpetitionhas beenfiled on 28.01.1997whichis clearly barredby latches and delay; the whole case of the petitioneris founded on the alternate accommodation which had been made available to the . ' . tenant on 07.08.1977 and 01,11.1980; eviction petition filed more than 17-years later is barred by limitation; submission being that the provisionsof "Article 66 of the LimitationAct which is the applicable , . provisionallows a limitationof 12 years for filing such a petition;this • ; argumenthas also not been consideredin the correctperspectivebythe• '•two courts' below; on this count also the impugned judgment suffers from an infirmity and it is liable to be set aside.. In support of this submission "reliance has again placed upon Ganpat Ram Sharing Gavatri DeVifsupra); submission is that Aiticle 66 of the Limitation Act clearlyprescribeda period of limitationof 12 years; in that case, the court had noted, that the landlord in such type of cases ,must be quick in A" . taking action after the accrual of the cause of action and if by his • inactionthe tenant allows tke premisesto go out of his hands then it is the landlord who is to blame and not the tenant; contentionbeing that '• in this ca§e the eviction petition having been filed more than 17 years CM (M) No. 1158/2011&ContCas.792/2011 Page8ofl9. . . . I . ' afterthe date of the accrualof causeof actionin favourofthe landlord was clearly barred by time. .•8. Record has been perused. Eviction petition has been filed on . 28 01.1997.It is not in disputethat on the date ofthe filing of eviction " . petitionthe' alternate accommodationwhich had been :allottedto the •- tenant i.e.. 12 Friends Colony (West) and 46 Friends Colony (East) . (whichwerelimitedtenanciesunderSection21 ofthe DRCA)had sm.ce . • been vacated; the landlord through his counsel had made a clear ' ,'admission on this point;this factumis even otherwise,notin dispute.It' is thus'clearthat on the date ofthe filing ofthe evictionpetitioni.e. on • ';28.01.1997the aforenotedtu'o accommodationsWere not in possession of the tenant. The questionof apphcabilityof"Section l4(l)(h) of the ' DRCA in this scenario had arisen before the RCT..The RCT had • , , , returnedafinding that if the ingredientsof Section 14(l)(h) of the DRCA have been flilfilledonce, the tenant would lose his protection - , under Section l4(l)(h)of the DRCA and even if he has givenup this •. • accommodation or has, lost it for one reason or the other in this interveningperiod, the protectiveumbrellaof Section14(l)(h)of the DRCAwouldno longerbe availableto him. . • .• ' CM (M) Nd. 1158/2011&ContCas.792/2011 Page9ofl9, "(2) Clause (h) ofthe proviso to sub-section(1) ofthe section14 ofthe • Act is as under:' "S. 14(1) Notwithstandinganything to the contrasy containedin any • ^ •otherlaw or contract,no orderor decreefor the recoveryof possession ofanypremises'shallbe made by any courtor controllerinfavorofthe .landlordagainst a tenant; Provided that the controller may on-an applicationmadeto him in theprescribedmanner, make an orderfor.the , '• recoveryofpossessionofthe premiseson. one or more ofthefollowing grounds:only: namely: (h) that the tenanthas, whether before'ofafter the co.mm.encementofthis Act, built acquiredvacant possessionof or • •• been allotted, a residence; . . . . •

¶9Asimilarquestionhad arisenbeforethe Apex Court in 1989 (3)_ sec 72 titlp.dasMohiniBadhwarv^'. Ra^hunandanSaranAshokSaran. In this case an alternateaccorhrnp.dationhad admittedlybeenallutt^dito. . .thetenantwho had sold,itfour days afterits occupationand on thQ date • •. ofthe filing ofthe evictionpetitionthe tenantwas not in possessionof :• ' • . this property;Apex Courthad returnedapositivefinding,that this fact that the tenanthad lost possessionof the alternateaccommodationand was not in possessionof the same on the date of the. evictionpetition , was not material'forthe apphcabilityof Section14(l)(h)ofthe DRCA, . This view was.fli-sttaken by the DivisionBench of this court in m 'IQRO Delhi / titledas Hem Chand Baid vs. Prem Wati Parekh.v/hic]ii .CM (M) No. 1158/2011&ContCas.792/2011 . ' Page10 of19 A- • had quoted with .approval.theratio laid down in 2nd 1970 Delhi 1748 Batto Mat's case where the Division Bench held as under:- "Apartfrom thefact that the Legislature could not have intendedthat the ' , • • • rightarisen infavour ofthe landlordcouldbe so easilydefeatedat the • .. ofthe tenant, yve are not at allconvincedthat the mere use of the word 'has'can supportthe argumentofthe tenantas to the meaning • of the proviso (h) to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. " The merefact thatthe tenanthas subsequentlydisposedof the residencedoes not efface thefact that he had once acquiredit and thus gave a cause of action to the landlordfor filing a petitionfor ^ , eviction It cannotbe open to the M'rongfuldoerhimselftoput the aggrievedparty out ofcourt by subsequentlychar:igingthe situation .unilaterally."

¶10The Apex Court in GanpatRain Sharma(Supra)had also had an • .• occasionto deal with the provisionof Section 14(l)(h) of the DRCA. , / •• This was.an appealwhichhadbeenfiledby the tenantin the ApexCourt against an,- eviction decree which had fallen into the hands of the . •• • landlord under Section 14(l)(h) of the DRCA. In this case the landlord-had claimedevictionofhertenantGanpatRam who had been allotteda • • residentialquarterat KirshnaNagar.& SeelamPur; in the course of the ' . •• evidenceit had come on recordthat althoughthis accommodation had been allottedto the tenant-GanpatRam and possessionhad also been •CM (M) No. 1158/2011&ContCas.792/2011,' PagelloflP /t' A delivered to him but thereafter on the. date of filing of the eviction petitionhe was not'in possessionof either of the two propertiesand somebody else was in its possession.A Bench of this court (against which an appeal had been filed in the Supreme Court) had noted that this factum was immaterial; and once . the condition as stipulated in Clause(h) ofthe Section14(1) (h) ofthe DRCA had been fulfilled,the tenantwas disentitledto its protectionthereafter.This view ofthe High Courtwas affirmedby the Apex Court. Relevantextractis producedas under "The landlady claimed eviction of Ganpat Ram, appellant-tenant,on • ' ' another ground also, .namely, that he has been allotted residential , . • ,• , quarterat3]7, SeelampurIII, Shahddra,Delhi. Thisfactwas deniedhy .the tenant. AWl Naresh Chand, an official of the ,DDA brought the : . officialrecordrelatingto the allotmentofthis quarter. It was proved • . . thatthe saidquarterwas allottedto him in1958 andthatposse.ssionyi>as, deliveredto him. It was deposedthat it was residentialin nature. On •behalfofthe tenants, it suBnMttedbefore the High Court that the same was inpossessionofSushilaDevi. SushilaDevihadappearedas a •witness. She adrnittedthat the said quarter M>as allotted to the tenant,• . '• GanpatRam, the appellant. AfterallotmentGanpatRam. was entitledto occupythe allottedaccommodationandpossessionwas deliveredto him.. According.^to the said witness, he yvas not now in possessiori.and . - somebodyelse was inpossession. EvidenceM>as adducedon behalfofthe • tenant that he was not in possession and somebody else was in' ' ' CM (M) No. 1158/2011&ContCas.792/2011 ; Pagel2ofl9 •]S.' • 'if-n possession.Accordingto the HighCourt, it once the conditionstiptdated in clause (hj was-fulfilledby the tenant, he was disentitledto protection under the Act, He cannotthereafterclaim that he shouldbe protected . We are ofthe opinionthatthe High Courtwas right

¶25In thepremises,we are ofthe view thatthe HighCourtwasnghtand the appealsmustfail.andare accordinglydismissedwithcosts."

¶11thisjudgi^nthavingreaffirmedthis aforenotedlegalposition,it is clear that the presenttenant i.e. M/s. Modi Spinningand Weaving Millshavingbeenallottedalternatesuitableaccommodationi.e.thetwo propertiesat 12 Friends Colony (West) and 46 FriendsColony (East) and even though they were not in possession of these alternate accommodationson the date offire filing oflie evictionpetrttan, this "fact wouldbe immaterial;the protectiveumbrellaofSection14(l)(h)of theDRCAhad been lostto suchatenant.Tliis argumentoffire learned counselfor the petitionerthus has no force.

¶12The'other argument which has to be answered by this court relates to fire question of limitation.In the judgmentot GaimLMl aarma(supra).Article66 oftheLimitationActhadbeenheldto befile Page 13'of 19 CM (M) No. 1158/2011&ContCas.792/2011 . • • . - • ' relevant provision for .seeking possession of iinmovable property; limitation would run from the date wHen the plaintiff becomes entitled . V:-- to the possessionby reasonofforfeitureor breach'ofa condition. In the case in hand i.e. in the facts of Gdnpat Ram Sharma (supra), the , question of limitation was not really disputed as the landlady had • . .purchasedthispropertyonly on 09.04.1973and the evictionpetitionhad been filed on 16.04.1975;therewas also nothingon recordto show that' ' • the earlier landlord was aware of the availability of alternate suitable • > ' • accommodation with the tenant Ganpat Ram. .

¶13In the present case, positivefact findings have been returned by ' .. •"the RCT which is to the effect that the landlordhad laiowledge of these alternate accommodation allotted to the tenant only in the year 1993; no . Iqiowlfedgecouldbe attributedto any periodpriorto 1993;this was after' • goingthroughthe pleadingsand the evidenceof the parties. Courtha(j . returned these fact findings in the aforenoted terms. "38. I am afraid the submissions of the appellant are based on distortedreading of the pleadings and the. evidence. When the decree . ' ' ^ holder in the civil suit pleaded "common knowledge" respectingthe .• ' • other tenancies,the averment was through a sentence in the 'present tense'. It nowherestates,asisbeingsubmittedthatthe landlordhad been aware aboutthe othertenanciessince beginningi.e. 1977/1980. Ifat all, CM (M) No. 1158/2011&ContCas.792/2011 Page14 of19 n n?\ it would show ths "common knowledge" related to August, 1996 when the said plaintwas verified. The decree holder was cross-examinedon'

17.11.2003, when he would talk about the knowledge about the acquisitionofthese propertiesaroundten yearsago. It wouldmean that the knowledge had been acquired some time in 1993. Thus, the knowledge cannot be attributedfor any period antecedent to 1993. In this view, the argumentsof limitationand lachesfall to the ground." . ^ . . •

¶14This court is sitting under the powers of superintendence under ..Article 227 of the Constitution of India; it is conscious of the.fact that the provisionofSection39 whichisthe rightofsecondappealhas.since J ,• ' • ' been abrogatedand,powersof superintendenceofthe High Courtarenot . , , • the substitutepowers of an appellateforum. This courtbeingnot a fact finding court it cannotre-examinethese fact findings returnedby the RCT which are based on an appreciationof the evidence of the parties. • . •• : Relevantwould it be at this stageto state that the questionof limitation was also never raised as a defence by the tenant before the ARC; it .surfaced for-the first time only before the RCT.. In his cross- • examination,PWl has clearly statedthat he learnt-aboutthis alternate , accommodationonly about 10 years ago; presentpetitionhaving been • ' • filed on 28.01.1997 i.e. within 12 years of loiowledge was' even otherwiseclearly,withintheprescribedperiodof limitation. (3M (M) No. 1158/2011ScContCas.792/2011 ' • Page 15 of19. -iy •'•• '^15. Thelastsubmissionmadeby the-learnedcounselforthepetitioner , td the effectthat the landlady^CrishnaWanti has not come into the , • • •, • witness, box; her attorney Tejinder Singh has alone come into the witness box to substantiatethe submissions made by the landlady- •,&ishnaWanti; attentionhas been drawn to the cross-examinationof . ,• •• pwi-TejihderSinghwhereinhe.-hadadmittedthathe hadno Imowledge •• regardingthe tenancy;his affidavitis based on documents;contention ^ being that the finding retuned by the RCT that Krishna Wanti had • ; ' . •. •Icnowledgeaboutthe alternateaccommodationshavingbeen allottedto the tenant'only from the year 1993 was only withinthe specialdomain ' of KjcishnaWanti herselfwho not having been come into the witness box, testimonyof PWl on this count is unreliabfe.This submissionof . • the learnedcounselfor the petitioneris also bereftofall force.Not only ;.; • • was this-objectionnottakenin eitherofthefactfindingcourtsbelowthe recordshowsthat on the datewhenPWl had filedhis affidavit,by way ofevidencewhichwas in October-November2003, KrishnaWantiwas . ^•' a dead person. In his affidavithe-has. clearly stated that during he^ • -:"'••• . lifetimeofKrishnaWanti had executed aGeneralPower ofAttorney " dated 27.09.1996in his favour (Ex. P5); during the pendency of this CM (M) No. 1158/2011&ContCas.792/2011 Pagel6ofl9^ •r 'B. .n/'> petitionKrishnaWantihad diedleavingbehinda.Willdated07.12.1995; . • • probateofthe said.Willhad been obtainedin BLA 155/1998from the High Court at Kolkata;the certifiedcopy ofthe probatepetition,Will ' andthe codicilhadbeenpi:ovedas EX.P6;on the basisofthe aforenoted • .• • Will and codicil, Tejinder Singh has become the owner of the suit • • • •property.Thereis no disputeto thesefactualaverments.

¶16It is thus clear that even during the lifetime of KrishnaWanti, /7' , .PWl'wasprosecutingthe litigationon the basis ofapower of attorney and duringtliependencyofthe petition;,afterher deathhe havingbeen . ' • "becomethe owner by vimie ofthe Will left by the deceasedKrishna Wanti he continued to ,prosecute the litigation. PWl. in these circumstances had deposed on' the documentary evidence. .This submissioriraisedby thepetitioneris alsowhollydevoidofforce. .

¶17Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that this litigationis aclassicexampleofafrivolousand amaliciouslitigation;It " ; is wastageofthe precioustimeofthe court;attentionhas beendrawnto certainorderspassedby Court. Recordshowsthatthe defenceraisedby ,• • • the petitionerall alongwas that M/s Modi Overseasis an independent • • •tenantof the landladyand M/s. Modi Spinnign&WeavingMills^Co. CM (M) No. 1158/2011&ContCas.792/2011 ^^^el o Ltd. is not the^tenant;this controversywas finallysetto rest by an order "- of this court Avhichwas passed in CM (M)NO. 652/2007on.09.09.2009: • • This orderhas been noted in para 4 (supra);vehementcontentionof the' learned counsel for the respondent is that in spite of this specific undertakinghaving been given bythe learnedsenior counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner which was to the effect that M/s. Modi Overseas would never contest any proceedings as a separate legal n. • entit)r having acceptedthe positionthat it is a division of M/s. Modi' Spimiing-and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd.; yet in spite of diis specific •. undertakinghavingbeen givento the courton09.09.2009;this averment' •; was again raised before the RCT. . .

¶18This fact is not in dispute. This contention was'raised before the RCT who had dealtwith it while disposing the appealunder Section38 of the DRCA and this argument find mention in .para 20 of the impugned judgment. The RCT had again to dwell on to this submission and return findingswhich did amountto a wastage of its precioustime; •it chose to flout its own undertaking. So also the saine grievance/was again raised as a' ground of its grievance in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and finds mention in grounds d, CM (M) No. 1158/2011 &.CclntCas.792/2011 Pagel8ofl9' fl e&f. This argumenthas been noted and averredin the earlierpart of this order.

¶19It is thus clearthat there has been a wastageofthe precioustime ofthis cour[ in this longendearingprocess,the sameargumenthas been pressed before the RCT has again been argued before this court althoughthe petitionerhad given an undertakingnot to arguethis point again. Such kind of frivoloussubmissionshave to be nipped in the bud with an intentto deter litigantsfrom increasingthe scope of litigation yip and maneuveringit into aprocessofaluxuriouslitigationleading,to a wastageofthe precioustime ofthe courts;otherwisethe litigantwould never learn. This submissionofthe learnedcounselfor the respondent "havingfound forc^e and havingbeen substantiatedfrom the record,this petitionis dismissedon meritsas also for raisingfrivolousarguments.It is accordinglydismissedwithcostsof? 50,000/-.

¶20Petitiondisposedof in the aboveterms. n INDERMEET KAUR, J "February 23, 2012 rb CM (M) No. 1158/2011&ContCac.l9a/2011

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI o/o Date ofJudgment: 23.02.2012 + CONT.CAS(C) 792/2011 MODI SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS CO LTD & ANR Petitioners Through: Mr.A.K.Matta,Sr. Adv. with Mr. Avijeet Bhujbal, Advocate. versus ^ TEJINDERSINGH Respondent Through: Mr.SandeepSetthi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Prashanto Chandra Sen, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR