Delhi District Court
Bhagwat Goel S/O Late Sh. Sawan Ram vs Satyawati (Deceased) on 20 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K. GAUBA: DISTRICT JUDGE
(SOUTH) & ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL,
SAKET, NEW DELHI
(1) ARCT No.16/09
ID No.: 02403C0171552009
Bhagwat Goel s/o late Sh. Sawan Ram,
R/o U 26/1, DLFIII
Gurgaon .............. Appellant
Versus
Satyawati (deceased)
through applicants
1. Dr. Indu Arora w/o Sh. Chandru Arora
R/o 104, Prithviraj Road,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Sh. Dinesh Ahluwalia
s/o late Sh. F. C. Ahluwalia,
R/o C18, NDSEII, New Delhi .............. Respondents
(2) M18/10
ID No.: 02406C0466112010
Bhagwat Goel s/o late Sh. Sawan Ram,
R/o U 26/1, DLFIII Gurgaon122002 ................... Appellant
Versus
1. Dr. Indu Arora w/o Sh. Chandru Arora
ARCT No. 16/09 & Misc. No. 18/10 Bhagwat Goel Vs. Satyawati (deceased) 1 of 11
R/o 104 Prithviraj Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Ganesh Ahluwalia s/o late Sh. Fakir Chand Ahluwalia,
C18, NDSEII, New Delhi110049
3. Y. P. Narual, Advocate, Chamber No. 306,
High Court at Delhi, New Delhi.
4. Anirudh Choudhry, advocate.
Narula & Associates Advocate,
306, Lawyers Chamber,
High Court at Delhi, New Delhi. Respondents.
Instituted on: 23.04.2009 and 18.10.2010
Judgment reserved on: 20.05.2011
Judgment pronounced on :20.05.2011
J U D G M E N T
1. The appeal ARCT no. 16/09 under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the DRC Act") is directed against order dated 15.03.2008 passed by Sh. A.K. Sisodia, Additional Rent Controller (ARC) and order dated 04.03.2009 passed by Sh. Sandeep Yadav, Rent Controller (RC), South in proceedings arising out of application under section 19 (2) read with section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act (in execution) and the application seeking review of the said order respectively. The miscellaneous case no. 18/10 relates to ARCT No. 16/09 & Misc. No. 18/10 Bhagwat Goel Vs. Satyawati (deceased) 2 of 11 application of the appellant under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeking action for criminal contempt of court allegedly committed by the respondents by interfering in the course of justice employing "all possible violations / crimes in order to obtain favourable orders".
2. Both the appeal and contempt application have been resisted.
3. I have heard the petitioner in person (describing himself to be an advocate, well versed in law and facts of the case) at length. He has also filed written arguments. I have gone through the record.
4. The background facts leading to the appeal and the application under Contempt of Courts Act are noticed at sufficient length in the order dated 15.03.2008 passed by the ARC on the file of execution no. 49/05. For present purposes, the said narration as appearing in paras 5 and 6 of the said order (the correctness of which is not disputed) should suffice and may be noticed at this stage.
5. Smt. Satyawati (since deceased), the original petitioner, filed a petition for the eviction of the appellant (JD) u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25B of the DRC Act wherein the latter sought leave to defend, which was allowed. After trial, the eviction petition was dismissed by Sh. V.K. Sharma, the then Ld. ARC, vide his ARCT No. 16/09 & Misc. No. 18/10 Bhagwat Goel Vs. Satyawati (deceased) 3 of 11 order dated 03.01.2002. The original petitioner filed a revision against the said order in which was successful. An eviction order was passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 06.08.2004. The said order was challenged by filing a review before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed. The JD preferred SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order, which too was dismissed in limine.
6. During the proceedings, the Decree Holder died. The LRs of the Decree Holder filed the execution petition which were resisted by the JD / Tenant appellant (JD). He filed a number of applications in the execution petitions raising various pleas, but the same were rejected by the courts including the appellate courts.
7. The appellant also filed a suit bearing suit no. 33/05 seeking declaration that the decree and judgment of Hon'ble High Court was null and void. The said suit was dismissed as not maintainable by the court of Ms. Vrinda Kumari, Civil Judge vide her order dated 28.07.2005.
8. Perusal of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court in Civil Misc. (M) 345/06 dated 15.02.2006 shows that the counsel for the JD sought time of six months to vacate the premises in question. This was partially allowed and the appellant was ARCT No. 16/09 & Misc. No. 18/10 Bhagwat Goel Vs. Satyawati (deceased) 4 of 11 granted four months' time to vacate the premises on he giving an undertaking that he shall vacate the premises on before 15.06.2006. The appellant, however, failed to hand over the possession despite the said undertaking (dated 22.03.2006). The Decree Holders, therefore, filed a contempt application bearing CM no. 9430/06. It was during the said proceeding that the appellant agreed to deposit the keys in the court on the next day i.e. 18.07.2006. The keys of the suit premises were ultimately delivered by him. On 20.10.2006, the DH informed the executing court that he had received the vacant possession of the tenanted premises and, thus, the execution petition was disposed off as satisfied vide order dated 25.05.2007.
9. It appears that the appellant (Judgment Debtor) had moved application under section 47 CPC and under section 19 of DRC Act during the execution proceedings. It has been mentioned in para 3 of the impugned order (dated 15.03.2008) that the said application came to be dismissed by the executing court vide order dated 23.09.2005. He later moved an application under section 19 (2) of DRC Act read with section 151 CPC which was dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2008.
10.The contentions of the appellant in the application under Section 19(2) DRC Act leading to the impugned order were ARCT No. 16/09 & Misc. No. 18/10 Bhagwat Goel Vs. Satyawati (deceased) 5 of 11 that the deceased landlady had been pursuing a false, frivolous and vexatious litigation as was clear from the judgment dismissing the eviction petition by the then Ld. ARC and later the whole exercise was a result of perjuries, forgeries and falsehood played by the DH through their counsel. Vide order dated 06.08.2004, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had reversed the order of the Ld. ARC dated 03.01.2002, and ordered eviction in favour of the respondent / daughter of the landlady, Dr. Indu Arora. The Hon'ble High Court in its order had observed that the services of daughter Dr. Indu Arora were required by the landlady to look after her in her old age. The said landlady, however, had died on 11.08.2004 i.e. 5 days after the said judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court. The appellant stated that with the death of landlady, the bonafide requirement had extinguished, but Dr. Indu Arora in her CM (M) 284/05 continued with her nefarious designs for fraudulent eviction and had conceded that after the demise of her mother, she did not need to shift to Delhi from Jaipur where she was working as a surgeon/professor in SMS Medical College. It was further stated by the appellant in his application that although the keys of the said portions were handed over on 18.07.2005, Dr. Indu Arora had only put her lock on the ARCT No. 16/09 & Misc. No. 18/10 Bhagwat Goel Vs. Satyawati (deceased) 6 of 11 premises but had never occupied it thereafter, even when over three months had passed by. He stated that instead of moving in, she continued to live in Jaipur working in SMS Hospital, also running her personal clinic there.
11.It was thus stated by the appellant that neither the original landlady nor the said daughter Dr. Indu Arora had occupied the premises within two months as stipulated in Section 19 of DRC Act, and so it was a fit case for the court to order Dr. Indu Arora to hand over the possession back to the appellant (JD). He further stated that it was a settled law that fraud nullifies everything including all the orders obtained thereby. He prayed for restoration of the tenanted premises in his favour.
12.The application under Section 19(2) DRC Act was contested by the Decree Holder, inter alia, on the basis of preliminary objection that the appellant (JD) having voluntarily handed over the possession of the premises, with his consent, pursuant to orders dated 15.02.2006 and 17.07.2006 of Hon'ble High Court and on the basis of his undertaking dated 22.03.2006, could not invoke section 19 (2) of DRC Act. It was contended that the application had been moved in order to harass the Decree Holder and grab the property.
13.The Decree Holder submitted that the premises in question was ARCT No. 16/09 & Misc. No. 18/10 Bhagwat Goel Vs. Satyawati (deceased) 7 of 11 very much in occupation of the legal heirs of the original petitioner, including her daughter Dr. Indu Arora, and that the same had neither been let out nor was lying unoccupied as claimed by the JD.
14.The appellant, in the course of the said proceedings, also, inter alia, alleged that the original petitioner had concealed the other properties available to her while prosecuting the petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide need. He attributed fraud, forgery and perjury on the part of the Decree Holder. Ld. ARC deciding the application vide order dated 15.03.2008 observed that he being the executing court could not go behind the judgment and decree granting the order of eviction on 06.08.2004 passed by Hon'ble High Court which had since attained finality, in as much as the SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court had also been dismissed. In my considered opinion, this was a correct view taken by the ARC, sitting in execution proceedings and dealing with application under Section 19 DRC Act, and his conclusions cannot be faulted.
15.As regards the contentions pertaining to the prayer under section 19 (2) of DRC Act, the ARC, interalia, dealt with the allegations that the petitioner having died on 11.08.2004, the bonafide requirement of the landlady stood extinguished and ARCT No. 16/09 & Misc. No. 18/10 Bhagwat Goel Vs. Satyawati (deceased) 8 of 11 that Dr. Indu Arora had only put her lock but never occupied the said premises and continued to live and work in Jaipur and hence the JD / tenant was entitled to restoration of the suit premises.
16.He rejected the contention of the appellant observing that it is well settled law that the term "occupy" has a wider connotation and it does not merely mean to start residing in the premises. He further observed that where there are more than one beneficiaries of the eviction order passed u/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, it is not necessary that each and every one of them should start residing in the suit premises. In his view, the original petitioner having expired before she could enjoy the fruits of her decree, it did not mean that the bonafide requirements of the petitioner stood extinguished. He added that the LRs of the deceased petitioner had filed the execution petition and the possession was handed over to them by the JD pursuant to an undertaking given by him in Hon'ble High Court and now Decree Holders were in occupation of the suit premises. Dr. Indu Arora was admittedly working and staying at Jaipur being employed in SMS Hospital. In his view, merely because she was unable to reside in the suit premises due to her employment, it cannot be said that the premises was lying ARCT No. 16/09 & Misc. No. 18/10 Bhagwat Goel Vs. Satyawati (deceased) 9 of 11 unoccupied or locked. He took note of the fact that the JD had not filed any rejoinder to the reply filed by the DHs for controverting the averments made by the DH's in the reply and, thus, concluded that it could not be said that the suit premises had been lying unoccupied after the possession of the same was handed over by the JD. For these reasons, the ARC dismissed the application under section 19(2) of ARC vide order dated 15.03.2008.
17.The appellant then moved an application seeking review of the said order. This application was dismissed by the Rent Controller finding it gross abuse of the process of law and an attempt on the part of the appellant to entangle the Decree Holder in frivolous litigation.
18. On careful appraisal of the material submitted before me, I find no error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders. The appellant has not shown by any cogent material or evidence, even prima facie that the premises in question was not "occupied" by or on behalf of the Decree Holder within the meaning of the section 19 (2) of DRC Act. The arguments of the appellant have been duly considered and properly addressed in the impugned order dated 15.03.2008 as mentioned above. I do not find any error in the view taken by the Ld. ARC in the ARCT No. 16/09 & Misc. No. 18/10 Bhagwat Goel Vs. Satyawati (deceased) 10 of 11 factual matrix of the case. I join my voice with that of the ARC in the said conclusions.
19.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
20.In the given facts and circumstances, I do not find it expedient, just or proper to initiate any action on the application under Contempt of Courts Act. The same is also dismissed.
21. The trial court record be returned with copy of this judgment.
22.Appeal files be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in open Court today on this 20th day of May, 2011 (R.K. GAUBA) District Judge (South) & Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Saket, New Delhi.
ARCT No. 16/09 & Misc. No. 18/10 Bhagwat Goel Vs. Satyawati (deceased) 11 of 11