Veena Sethi & Ors v. Inder Kumar Lamba

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. " ---**jle-Ei..j ttml/defect.pSp:16 IN lr7/ .\ ,* ,, Il% II I 1lr) '-r THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment : I 5 - 3. 20 I 2 CM(M) r32s/20r0 & CM No.1887012010 v ANIL KUMAR Through: '+-..-Petitioner Mr.Sudhansu Bdtra,.Sr. Adv. with Mr.Bhuvan Gugnani, Adv. VCTSUS INDER KUMAR,tfiH'*"t' AND cM(M) r326DArc VEENA SETHI & ORS Through: ResPondent Mr.Ajay Malhotra, Adv. ; ..... Petitioners Mr.Sudhansu Batra, Sr. Advr with Mr.Bhuvan Gugnani, Adv. INDER KUMAR LAMBA CM(M) Nos. 1325/201 0 &1326/201 0 Through: Mr.Ajay Malhotra, Adv. ..... Respondent Page 1 of7 hr\ c-' \ \) INDERMEET KAUR. J. (Oral)

¶1Impugned order is dated 12'8'2010; the application filed bY the (2 '.j i propefiles are: i. the business of the lairdlord being carried Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi; CM(M) Nos.L 325/2010 &1326/2010 out fiom S-53, Page2 of7 petitioner/tenant under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Prbcedure (hereinafter referred to.as the code) seeking amendment in his application for leave to defend had been dis-"l;;; )

¶2Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlord Inder Kumar Lamba. against his tenant Anil Kur,nar under Section 1 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA). After service of summons leave to defend was filed FV ittd tenant on20.L0.2009. Present application under order VI Rule 17 of the code had been filed six months later i.e. on22.4.2010. The avdrments made in the application are that after the filing of the leave to defend the tenant has come to know about certain properties which are owned by the landlord from where he and his son are carrying oh business and as ' such he wishes to incotporate those details therein. The details of these W+eg i. ,li.' :, .l ryt i. i.r ' t1

¶11iii. iv. V. vi. t Business premises at 703-704, New Rajinder Nagar' New Delhi from where he is doing business of auto parts; B-Lz, First Floor, Jhilmil Colony Industrial Area from where the son of the landlord Ajay Lamba is working; 238112 Punja Sarif, Kashmere Gate, Delhi' another properfy ownedby the son of the landlor-d; 23812, Punja Sarif , Kashmere*-Gg{q Delhi another business house of the son of the landlord Ashish Lamba-Premises bearing No.DB-11134A, Vikaspuri' Delhi' business house of Ashish Lamba Ashish Lamba is also owning flat at Gandhi Ashram CoopeSative Housing Society', Plot-9, Sector-10' Dwarka' New Delhi. nJ. contention in the application is that these amendments are necessary and should be incorporated and brought on record. i

¶4Needless to state that the reply filed to the said application vll. opposed this PraYer.

¶5Impugned order had declined the prayer made court had noted it is only an oral submission made by the petitioner that these facts had come to the knowredge of the tenant only after the defence filed by another teuant in a connected eviction petition had been inspected by him; courl had noted that the details of property No' s-53' CM(M) Nos. 1325/2010 &1326/2010 Page3 of7 the rr , l;.vt, r iJ llr/ High Court passed dinfinrr in the application; has rrder exercrsing.luris, , {.L^ /'\^- ^L:L--L:--- .puts 1zoo 1/ENG/ c siptswzau 'lr nrlar Arl' AQl nf tnl/de 'i . r l-:-- recf.php?dno-=i 'n Lh ipxlt Y* t Greater Kailash, Part-I and No.DB-11134L, vikaspuri, Delhi, do match with the averments made in that application (E^6412009); otherwise the court was of the view that no plausibl8 'ieason has given to allow the amendments. even been

¶6.The summary procedure,for dealing with the qpecial cla$s of the landlord as is the present case (under Section iZf ff.l of the DRCA) is contained in chapter-III . of the DRCA; Section 25B is in fact a bornplete Code in itself. It specifically postulates that after summons have been served upon a tenant leave to defend has to be filed within 15 days Adrnittedly leave to defend hacl been filed within the stipulated period of 15 days. Thereafter the present application has been filed after more than six months; how and from where the tenant learntiabout these facts which he now proposes to bring on record have not been detailed in this application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code; for u,hat purpose the amendment is necessary has aiso not been disclosed; further an application for leave to defencl has to be filed on an affidavit which is the specific procedure conlained in Section 25B of the DRCA; the amendments now sought to be incorporated are admittedly'not on affidavit. CM(M) Nos. 1 325/2010 &1326/2010 Page 4 of7 \ \. r. t -'t-.a 4!' a' :*/!t" t' not passed by thd r.zu5pre-rr-Tr0€r-Hrgh Court exercrsing ;uris" 1 /BNG/ CSL I 2j.362 / 2A0 t diction undbr Art. 227 of the Constitution. ilfr$ s72\ F tlt ; 7, i' That apart these events which are now sought to be brought on passed by the diction under lligh Court tb exercrsing 3uris. the Consfitutinn a record are not subsequent events i.e. falling in those category of 'events which have happened during the pendency of the petition. A Bench of this Court in a judgmerit reported in 2009 10AD (Delhi) 284 kd Prakash & Anr Vs. Om Prakash had noted that while dealing with an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the C"A;frending proceedings under Section 1a(1)(e) of the DRCA; a distinction has to be drawn between those events which are prior in time to the filing of the eviction petition and those rvhich take place subsequently i,e. during the pendency of the eviction petition. These facts which are now sought to be 'brought on record are admittedly facts relating to the alleged ownership of certain properties by the landlord which propertids were admittedly purchased by him prior in time to the filing of the eviction petition; they do not qualify as subsequent events. These were all pre-existing i.e. exiting at the time when the application for ,leave to defend was filed. In fact if such kind of amendments are permitted the whole gurpose and intent of Section 25 B(4) would be defdated as the specifically postulatecl period for filing an application for leave tp defend within 15 days; would be given a goby and by permitting the CM(M) Nos. 1325/20i 0 &1326/20 10 Page 5 of7 :g 1/BNG/csL/21362/200r Art,22Z of lf)t( it t1 / -4i amendment there would be an absolute extension of time for filing the application for leave to clefend. This could not and was not the intent of the st4tute

8.TheSupremeCourtin(198a)2SCCT5RaviDu.ttSharmaVs. Ratan Lal Bhargava intel alia reads as follows: "7. ...... Thi dominant object of amending act is to provide a speedy' expeditious and effective remedy for a class of tafudtofds contemplated bySectionlaQ@)and]4-AandJbravoidingunusualdilatory process provided otherwise by the Rent Act' It is contmon experience thdt s:uits for eviction uni* the Act take a long tinte com.mencing with the Rent Controller and ending up with the St'tprenle Cot,trt. In nlany casesexperiencehasindicated'thatbythetimetheevictiondecree becamefinalseveralyearselapsedandeitherthelandlorddiedorthe necessity which provided the cause of action disappeared and it there wa,s further delay in securing eviction and the family of the landloi'd hadbyrhenexpanded,intheabsenceofaccommodationthenlenlbeis of the famity were virttnlly thrown on the ioad. It was this lttischief which the legislature intended to avoid by incorporating the ne'w procedure in chapter III-A. The legislatttre in its vtisdom though that in cases yvhere the landlords .required their own premises for bonafide and persttnal necessity they shottld be treated as a separate class along witlt the landlord's covered by Section 14-A and should be allowecltoreapthefrt'titsofdecreesforevictionwithinthequickest possibletime.Incannot,therefore'besaidthattheclassificationof strch landlords would be an 'unreasonable one because such a classification has got a clear nexus with the obiects of the artrending CM(M) Nos. 1325/2010 &1326/2010 Page 6 of7 fi;; qilIil'lT,: -AEt r,'fllc im eu€Rert rrcter 5,1?:"11,?** 3'*1 S:il ;#;ff i,? :'"Tixj ,1A I It tI , 1/BNG/csL/n382/2a0,1 dictiorr under ei,i. zi,ilri ffifffr,rriill" 1rm l/defecr.nhd?c/n h4 ' |G.. tt) Act and the purloses which it seelcs to subserve. 'Tenants cannol compla.in of any discrimination because the Rent Act nrerely gave certain protection to them in ptblic interest and if the protection'or a parrofitalforcledbytheRentAclwaswithdrawnandthecommonlcwv right of the tenant under the Transfer of Property Act was still presettted, no genttine grievance could be made' " t ,) ri 3l (J; a -TP

¶9Impugned order in suffers from no infirmitY. MARCI{ t5,2012 nandan this background declining the amendment TNDERMEET KA[IR., J I III -,4q i ! CM(M) Nos. 1325/201 0 &L326/20 10 Page7 ofl

ir.i l,l * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (/.I % Date of Judgment: 15.3.2012 + CM(M) 132612010 & CM No.18872 12010 VEENA SETHI & ORS ..... Petitioners . Through: Mr.Sudhansu Batra, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Bhuvan Gugnani, Adv. VETSUS INDER KUMAR LAMBA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.ajay Malhotra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR F INDERMEET KAUR. J. (Orai) For orders see CM(M) No.1325. MARCH 15,2012 nandan I I I I I u,