Delhi District Court
Arun Singhal vs Shree Jain Khartargachh Sangh (Regd.) on 17 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K. GAUBA: DISTRICT JUDGE
(SOUTH) - CUM - ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL
TRIBUNAL, SAKET, NEW DELHI
(1) ARCT No. 29/2010
ID No.: 02406C0499522010
Arun Singhal,
Private Shop No. 24 & 25,
228A, Masjid Moth, Jain Dadabari Temple,
New Delhi 110049. ... Appellant.
Versus
Shree Jain Khartargachh Sangh (Regd.)
2936, Jain Paushal, Katra Khushal Rai,
Kinari Bazar, Delhi 110006 ... Respondent.
(2) ARCT No. 30/2010
ID No.: 02406C0499502010
Dr.(Smt.) Neera Mathur
Private Shop No.6,
228A, Masjid Moth,
Jain Dadabari Temple,
New Delhi 110049. ... Appellant.
Versus
Shree Jain Khartargachh Sangh (Regd.)
ARCT Nos. 29/10, 30/10, 31/10 21/11, 22/11, 23/11 & 24/11 1 of 14
2936, Jain Paushal, Katra Khushal Rai,
Kinari Bazar, Delhi 110006 ... Respondent.
(3) ARCT No. 31/2010
ID No.: 02406C0499532010
Jagjit Singh
Private Shop No. 23,
228A, Masjid Moth,
Jain Dadabari Temple,
New Delhi 110049. ... Appellant.
Versus
Shree Jai Khartargachh Sangh (Regd.)
2936, Jain Paushal, Katra Khushal Rai,
Kinari Bazar, Delhi 110006 ... Respondent.
(4) ARCT No. 21/2011
ID No.: 02406C0101532011
Malti Devi
Private Shop No. 12,
228A, Masjid Moth,
Jain Dadabari Temple,
New Delhi 110049. ... Appellant.
Versus
Shree Jai Khartargachh Sangh (Regd.)
2936, Jain Paushal, Katra Khushal Rai,
ARCT Nos. 29/10, 30/10, 31/10 21/11, 22/11, 23/11 & 24/11 2 of 14
Kinari Bazar, Delhi 110006 ... Respondent.
(5) ARCT No. 22/2011
ID No.: 02406C0101582011
Rajesh Jain
Private Shop No. 1618,
228A, Masjid Moth,
Jain Dadabari Temple,
New Delhi 110049. ... Appellant.
Versus
Shree Jai Khartargachh Sangh (Regd.)
2936, Jain Paushal, Katra Khushal Rai,
Kinari Bazar, Delhi 110006 ... Respondent.
(6) ARCT No. 23/2011
ID No.: 02406C0101562011
S. L. Aggarwal
Private Shop No. 13 & 14,
228A, Masjid Moth,
Jain Dadabari Temple,
New Delhi 110049. ... Appellant.
Versus
Shree Jai Khartargachh Sangh (Regd.)
2936, Jain Paushal, Katra Khushal Rai,
Kinari Bazar, Delhi 110006 ... Respondent.
ARCT Nos. 29/10, 30/10, 31/10 21/11, 22/11, 23/11 & 24/11 3 of 14
(7) ARCT No. 24/2011
ID No.: 02406C0101552011
Rasik Lal Parekh
Private Shop No. 2122,
228A, Masjid Moth,
Jain Dadabari Temple,
New Delhi 110049. ... Appellant.
Versus
Shree Jai Khartargachh Sangh (Regd.)
2936, Jain Paushal, Katra Khushal Rai,
Kinari Bazar, Delhi 110006 ... Respondent.
Instituted on: 31.08.2010, 31.08.2010, 31.08.2010, 30.04.2011,
30.04.2011, 30.04.2011, 30.04.201 respectively.
Judgment reserved on: 17.11.2011
Judgment pronounced on : 17.11.2011
J U D G M E N T
1. All these seven appeals under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Controller Act, (hereinafter referred to as the "DRC Act") are directed against similar judgments passed by Rent Controller (South), in similarly placed eviction cases preferred by the ARCT Nos. 29/10, 30/10, 31/10 21/11, 22/11, 23/11 & 24/11 4 of 14 respondent Shree Jain Khartargachh Sangh (hereinafter referred to as "the Sangh") seeking an order of eviction against the appellants on the ground under Section 14(1)(a) DRC Act. All the seven petitions were preferred by the respondent through identical pleadings. Each case was contested by the appellants herein through similar pleadings on which the cases resulted in trials in which almost similar evidence was led by both sides. Learned Rent Controller through his judgment in each case has returned almost identical findings of facts on issues that were agitated and has decreed the petitions in favour of the respondents and against each of these appellants. It, however, being a case of first default, benefit of protection under Section 14(2) DRC Act was extended to the appellants and the proceedings brought to an end in each case.
2. The appeals at hand also raise questions which are common to all the seven cases. The appeals have been resisted through similar contentions and, therefore, all of them have been heard together and are being disposed of through this common judgment.
3. It will be proper to note in brief the relevant facts peculiar to each case at the out set.
ARCT Nos. 29/10, 30/10, 31/10 21/11, 22/11, 23/11 & 24/11 5 of 14
4. The appellant Arun Singhal was the respondent before the Rent Controller in the eviction petition presented on 08.11.1994 registered as eviction case no. E15/09(1994). The tenanted premises in his possession was described as shop bearing private numbers 24 & 25 forming part of property no.228A, Dada Bari Temple, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. It was claimed that the appellant in question had been inducted at rental of Rs. 600/ per month excluding other charges in the suit shops and that he had failed to pay or tender the rent with effect from 01.12.1988 within two months of the notice of demand dated 27.05.1994.
5. The appellant Dr. Neera Mathur was the respondent before the Rent Controller in the eviction petition presented on 08.11.1994 registered as eviction case no. E14/09(1994). The tenanted premises in her possession was described as shop bearing private number 6 forming part of property no.228A, Dada Bari Temple, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. It was claimed that the appellant in question had been inducted at rental of Rs. 160/ per month exclusive of other charges in the said shop and that she had failed to pay or tender the rent with effect from 01.01.1988 within two months of the notice of demand dated ARCT Nos. 29/10, 30/10, 31/10 21/11, 22/11, 23/11 & 24/11 6 of 14 27.05.1994.
6. The appellant Jagjit Singh was the respondent before the Rent Controller in the eviction petition presented on 08.11.1994 registered as eviction case no. E16/09(1994). The tenanted premises in his possession was described as shop bearing private number 23 forming part of property no.228A, Dada Bari Temple, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. It was claimed that the appellant in question had been inducted at rental of Rs. 300/ per month excluding other charges in the suit shop and that he had failed to pay or tender the rent with effect from 01.08.1988 within two months of the notice of demand dated 27.05.1994.
7. The appellant Malti Devi was the respondent before the Rent Controller in the eviction petition presented on 08.11.1994 registered as eviction case no. E132/09(1994). The tenanted premises in her possession was described as shop bearing private number 12 forming part of property no.228A, Dada Bari Temple, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. It was claimed that the appellant in question had been inducted at rental of Rs. 300/ per month excluding other charges in the suit shop and that she had failed to pay or tender the rent with effect from 01.11.1988 within two months of the notice of demand dated 27.05.1994. ARCT Nos. 29/10, 30/10, 31/10 21/11, 22/11, 23/11 & 24/11 7 of 14
8. The appellant Rajesh Jain along with another Ramesh Chand was substituted on 21.12.2009 in proceedings taken out against their predecessorininterest Dr. Suresh Jain. The petition against Dr. Suresh Jain before the Rent Controller in the eviction petition presented on 08.11.1994 was registered as eviction case no. E158/09(1994). The tenanted premises in their possession was described as shop bearing private numbers 16, 17 & 18 forming part of property no.228A, Dada Bari Temple, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. It was claimed that the predecessor of the appellant in question had been inducted at rental of Rs. 900/ per month exclusive of other charges in the suit shops and that he had failed to pay or tender the rent with effect from 01.10.1988 within two months of the notice of demand dated 26.06.1994.
9. The appellant S. L. Aggarwal was the respondent before the Rent Controller in the eviction petition presented on 08.11.1994 registered as eviction case no. E133/09(1994). The tenanted premises in his possession was described as shop bearing private numbers 13 & 14 forming part of property no.228A, Dada Bari Temple, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. It was claimed that the appellant in question had been inducted at rental of Rs. ARCT Nos. 29/10, 30/10, 31/10 21/11, 22/11, 23/11 & 24/11 8 of 14 132/ per month excluding other charges in the suit shops and that he had failed to pay or tender the rent with effect from 01.10.1988 within two months of the notice of demand dated 27.05.1994.
10.The appellant Rashik Lal Parekh was the respondent before the Rent Controller in the eviction petition presented on 08.11.1994 registered as eviction case no. E131/09(1994). The tenanted premises in his possession was described as shop bearing private numbers 21 & 22 forming part of property no.228A, Dada Bari Temple, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. It was claimed that the appellant in question had been inducted at rental of Rs. 600/ per month exclusive of other charges in the suit shops and that he had failed to pay or tender the rent with effect from 01.04.1988 within two months of the notice of demand dated 27.05.1994.
11.While each of the respondents in their written statements denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the receipt of the demand notice dated 27.05.1994 was not disputed. It was rather claimed that it was a wrong notice. The appellants, interalia, claimed that they were the tenants under Shree Jin Kushal Suri Jain Khartargachha Dada Bari Trust, New ARCT Nos. 29/10, 30/10, 31/10 21/11, 22/11, 23/11 & 24/11 9 of 14 Delhi. (hereinafter referred to as "the trust"). It was further claimed that the rent stood paid to the Trust under whom the appellants came to be the tenants.
12.The record would show that the learned Rent Controller in each case passed separate but similar orders under Section 15(4) DRC Act. The said orders appear to have been challenged in appeal before the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) but were upheld. It further appears that the appellants took the matters to Hon'ble High Court wherein the directions were modified, though requiring the appellants to deposit the rent in the court.
13.The petitions were put to trial and have resulted in similar judgments and directions passed by the Rent Controller. In each case the contention of the appellants of they being tenants under the Trust have been rejected. In each case, the appellants have been found in default and they having failed to comply with the notices of demand, the petitions have been allowed though with protection extended under Section 14(2) DRC Act.
14.The cases of Arun Singhal, Dr. Neera Mathur and Jagjit Singh were decided vide similar judgments passed on 03.07.2010. It appears that the said three appellants sought review but their ARCT Nos. 29/10, 30/10, 31/10 21/11, 22/11, 23/11 & 24/11 10 of 14 applications to that effect were not entertained by the Rent Controller through identical orders passed on 11.08.2010. The four other cases were decided by the Rent Controller through identical judgments dated 30.11.2010.
15.These appeals challenge the legality, correctness and propriety of all the above mentioned judgments/orders.
16. The appeals have been resisted by the respondents.
17. I have heard Sh. V. K. Sharma, advocate for the appellants and Sh. Nishant Dutt, advocate assisted by Sh. Ashok Jain advocates for the respondent. I have gone through the records.
18. The judgments suffer from a basic defect on which account alone the appeals deserve to be allowed. During the course of evidence the appellants had filed certified copies of pleadings and orders passed in other cases, essentially involving the Trust and the Sangh litigating with each other over the property in question. The learned Rent Controller has refused to look into the said documents on the ground that the official of the concerned courts were not summoned to prove the said documentary evidence. In the opinion of the learned Rent Controller, it was incumbent on the appellant to summon the court officials to prove the pleadings and also orders passed by ARCT Nos. 29/10, 30/10, 31/10 21/11, 22/11, 23/11 & 24/11 11 of 14 the courts thereupon. On this, the learned Rent Controller concluded that the documents had not been proved in accordance with law and, therefore, reliance thereupon was misplaced.
19.Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondent in these appeals fairly conceded that it was not proper on the part of the Rent Controller not to examine the impact of the said material which had been introduced in evidence. In this view, they would concede that the matters deserve to be remanded with directions that the Rent Controller shall examine the issues involved taking into account the effect and import of the said evidence also.
20.The learned counsel for the appellants while agreeing to the remand also fairly conceded and gave solemn undertaking that the appellants would not be pressing for any opportunity for adducing any further evidence since whatever evidence required to be produced has already been brought on record of the cases.
21.In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned judgments/orders are set aside. The appeals stand allowed. The matters are remanded to the court of Rent Controller who shall ARCT Nos. 29/10, 30/10, 31/10 21/11, 22/11, 23/11 & 24/11 12 of 14 hear the parties afresh on the basis of evidence already led and pass fresh judgment.
22.Given the nature of the controversy and the commonality of the facts and the evidence in these cases, it is desirable that they be heard together and decided through common judgment. I am informed that seven other similarly placed cases instituted by the Sangh respecting certain other adjoining tenanted premises are pending in the court of Sh. Balwant Rai Bansal, Additional Rent Controller (South). It is desirable, as submitted by both sides, that they are also heard together with these seven cases now being remanded. The parties shall be at liberty to approach the Rent Control Tribunal with appropriate prayer for transfer of all these 14 cases to one court.
23.The parties shall appear before the Rent Controller (South) on 13.12.2011 for further proceedings. Given the old pendency of these cases, it is desirable that they are decided and brought to logical end expeditiously. Both sides submit and undertake that they shall fully cooperate with the concerned court for expeditious disposal and shall not be taking any adjournment when the matters come up for effective hearing. The Rent Controller is requested to decide these cases afresh within a ARCT Nos. 29/10, 30/10, 31/10 21/11, 22/11, 23/11 & 24/11 13 of 14 period of three months from the date now fixed.
24.The reader is directed to place attested copies of this judgment on the record of case files of ARCT nos. 30/2010, 31/2010 21/2011, 22/2011, 23/2011 & 24/2011.
25.A copy of the judgment, as prayed, be given free of cost to both the sides.
26. The trial court records be returned with copy of this judgment.
27. Files of the appeals be consigned to Record Room. Announced in open Court today on this 17th day of November, 2011 (R.K. GAUBA) District Judge (South) - cum -
Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Saket, New Delhi.
ARCT Nos. 29/10, 30/10, 31/10 21/11, 22/11, 23/11 & 24/11 14 of 14