Delhi District Court
Shri Hari Ram Gupta vs Shri Jai Chand on 10 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH :
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
E40/2012
Unique ID No : 02401C0194722012
In the matter of:
Shri Hari Ram Gupta,
S/o Late Shri Shyam Sunder,
3862, Gali Kayasthan,
Charkhe Walan, Near Chawri Bazar,
Delhi110006.
....Petitioner
Versus
Shri Jai Chand,
S/o Late Shri Asha Ram,
E17, Preet Vihar,
Delhi
Second Address:
A/8, Gali No.9, New Govindpura,
Shadrah, Delhi.
Third Address:
D52, Preet Vihar,
Delhi.
.....Respondent
O R D E R:
Vide this order, I shall decide an application for leave to defend filed on behalf of the respondent under Section 25B (4) of The Delhi Rent E40/12 Page 1/19 Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act, 1958) seeking leave to contest the present eviction petition.
2. The present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner Sh. Hari Ram Gupta against the respondent Sh. Jai Chand under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act, 1958.
3. The version of the petitioner is that the respondent is a tenant in respect of godown measuring 18' X 12' in property No. 3862, Gali Kayasthan, Charkhe Walan, Near Chawri Bazar, Delhi110006 as shown in red lines in the siteplan @ of rent of Rs. 42/ per month excluding other charges and house tax etc. The premises is nonresidential. The premises is lying locked in a disserted condition since long back. The petitioner is owner and landlord of the aforesaid tenanted premises and requires the premises bonafidely for his daughter namely Shashi Gupta who is graduate and aged about 55 years. The said daughter is unmarried and dependent upon the petitioner. The said daughter is living with the petitioner and wants to carry on the business of stationary, cards etc. in the premises in suit. It is further stated that the petitioner has no other alternative accommodation with him on the ground floor. The petitioner has let out the ground floor shown in green colour in the site plan to Shri Kamal Kishore Gupta in the year 1980 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/ who is running business under name and style of M/s Kishore Metal Works. It is further stated that the petitioner is carrying on the business of hardware in the rented shop no. 3662, Chawri Bazar, Delhi under the name and style of M/s Hari Ram Gupta Hardware Merchant for the last more than 70 years. It is further stated that the E40/12 Page 2/19 petitioner has got no other properties or any other accommodation for running business by the dependent daughter of the petitioner. It is prayed that an eviction order may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of godown measuring 18' X 12' in property No. 3862, Gali Kayasthan, Charkhe Walan, Near Chawri Bazar, Delhi110006 as shown in red lines in the siteplan.
4. Summons in the prescribed form under Schedule III of DRC Act, 1958 were served upon the respondent and thereafter, respondent has filed application for leave to defend along with affidavit within the stipulated period from the date of service of summons.
5. It is the version of the respondent that the petitionerlandlord in the petition has not shown/mentioned the extent of space available with him actually and further that the petitionerlandlord is in actual physical possession of the entire ground floor of the premises no.3862, Gali Kayasthan, Charkhe Walan, Delhi110006 except the portion rented out to the respondent. The entire ground floor area admeasuring 125 sq. yds. approximately is available with the petitionerlandlord except the portion rented out to the applicant respondent. It is further stated that the petition has not been properly verified and not accompanied with a properly sworn affidavit. Infact the petition is dated 30.04.2011 and same has been verified on 30.04.2012 i.e. after one year. As per the accompanying affidavit the age of Sh. Hari Ram Gupta (Petitioner) has been mentioned as 70 years while as per the election card filed with the petition, the age of Sh. Hari Ram Gupta should be 78 years. The correct facts E40/12 Page 3/19 have not been disclosed and the petition is not verified and accompanied with a properly sworn affidavit and as such same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further the version of the respondent that the petitioner landlord has no where disclosed in the entire petition as to what his said daughter namely Ms. Shashi Gupta was doing since her graduation in the year 1976 till date. The petitioner has no where shown that under what circumstances, now at the age of 53 years the said daughter of the petitioner landlord thinks about doing of alleged business of stationary all of a sudden. The said daughter of the petitionerlandlord namely Ms. Shashi Gupta is absolutely independent since her graduation. It has also not been disclosed by the petitioner in the petition that Ms. Shashi Gupta is still a member of the family of petitioner. It has also not been disclosed by the petitioner that as to what she is doing since the year 1976 till date and why she wants to leave her earlier profession/business activity at this stage of life. It is further submitted that petitioner has simply mentioned that he has let out ground floor portion shown in green colour to one Sh. Kamal Kishore Gupta but he has intentionally and malafidely not mentioned that the said Kamal Kishore Gupta is his son. The landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and said Sh. Kamal Kishore Gupta (son of petitioner) is an sham and bogus relationship which has been created only on papers with malafide intention. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in possession of alternative accommodation i.e. the accommodation of the ground floor which is allegedly in the possession of Sh. Kamal Kishore Gupta who is son of petitioner and brother of Ms. Shashi Gupta. A portion measuring 7 X 14' shown as office in the site plan is actually and factually lying vacant with the petitioner. It is further contended that he is E40/12 Page 4/19 receiving rent for a particular area from his son then how one can believe that he will give any other accommodation to his daughter rent free. It is further prayed that application for leave to defend of the respondent may be allowed.
6. In reply to the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner, the allegations leveled by the respondent have been denied. It is submitted that the petitioner has stated in the petition that the petitioner has let out the ground floor portion shown in green colour in the site plan to Shri Kamal Kishore Gupta in the year 1980 who is running the business under the name and style of M/s Kishore Metal Works. It is further submitted that the petitioner has disclosed clearly in the petition that Ms. Shashi Gupta is dependent upon the petitioner and is living with him. It is further submitted that the alleged said portion is in possession of Shri Kamal Kishore Gupta as tenant. It is further submitted that the said portion is also having a toilet in a portion as well as stair case for going upward and the respondent has not disclosed this fact with malafide intentions. The premises in suit is lying locked since last 12 years.
7. Respondent has filed rejoinder and allegations leveled by the petitioner have been controverted and rebutted and the averments made in the application for leave to defend have been reiterated and reaffirmed.
8. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
9. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 173 (2010) Delhi Law E40/12 Page 5/19 Times 318 Delhi High Court, titled as "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta", 172 (2010) Delhi Law Times 551, titled as "Kharati Ram Khanna & Sons Vs. Krishna Luthra" and (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1, titled as "Shamshad Ahmad and Others Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) through LRs. And Others".
10. Ld. counsel for the respondent has relied upon 2011 (126) DRJ 323 Delhi High Court, titled as "Vijay Nayyar Vs. Om Prakash Malik", Civil Appeal No. 3405/2009 (Supreme Court), titled as "Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Rani Ravindran" and Civil Appeal No. 7385/2000 (Supreme Court), titled as "Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh.
11. While deciding the question whether leave to defend should be granted or refused, the Court is to address itself on following issues :
(a) That the petitioner is owner of the suit premises;
(b) Purpose of letting;
(c) That the premises is required bonafide by the petitioner; and
(d) That the petitioner has no other alternative suitable accommodation in Delhi.
12. In Precision Metal & Engg. Works Vs. Prema Deva, Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518, it has been held that "while deciding the application for leave to contest, the controller has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant under Sub Section (4) and the reply if any. On E40/12 Page 6/19 perusing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by the landlord, the controller has to pose to himself the only question, "Does the affidavit disclose, not prove, facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in clause of the proviso to Section 14 (1)?". The controller is not to record a finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of affidavits against the other set of affidavits."
The gist of the various decisions is that if any triable issue is raised in the application which can not be decided unless the parties lead evidence, leave to contest should be granted. In all other cases, the leave has to be refused.
13. In (2002) 7 SCC 614 titled as Rita Lal Vs. Raj Kumar Singh, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : "If the Court is satisfied that though in the pleadings an issue is raised but that is not a triable issue then the Court is justified in refusing the leave to defend. A defence, which is practically moonshine, sham or illusory can not be held to be raising a triable issue. Else the whole purpose behind enacting a provision for granting leave to defend, and not permitting a contest unless leave was granted, would stand defeated."
Ownership
14. The version of the petitioner is that he is owner and landlord of the aforesaid tenanted premises. The respondent has not challenged the ownership of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises. In Rajender Kumar Sharma & E40/12 Page 7/19 Others Vs. Leelawati & Others 155 (2008) DLT 383, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show only that he is more than tenant." In Shanti Sharma Vs. Ved Prabha AIR 1987 SC 2028, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that for the purpose of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act, "Ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only as a title better than the tenant". Accordingly, the aspect of ownership goes in favour of the petitioner.
Purpose of Letting
15. In the present petition, the purpose of letting is nonresidential. Even the purpose of letting has become redundant as in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India 148 (2008) DLT 705 Supreme Court, it has been held that the premises let out either for residential or for commercial purposes can be got vacated by the landlord for bonafide requirements.
Availability or NonAvailability of alternative suitable accommodation with the petitioner in Delhi
16. The stand of the petitioner is that he is not having any other suitable accommodation for running the business by his dependent daughter. The respondent has contended that the entire ground floor of suit premises measuring 125 sq. yds. except the tenanted premises is available with the petitioner and he is in actual physical possession.
E40/12 Page 8/19
17. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has already disclosed in his petition that he has let out ground floor portion as shown in green colour in the site plan to Sh. Kamal Kishore Gupta in the year 1980 who is running the business in the name and style of M/s Kishore Metal Works.
18. The petitioner has filed copy of rent receipt dated 09.06.1982 in which name of tenant has been shown as Kamal Kishore Gupta (Kishore Metal Works). Another copy of rent receipt dated 04.04.2012 is on record to show that tenant is Kamal Kishore Gupta (Kishore Metal Works). The petitioner has filed copy of electricity bill regarding premises no.3862, Ground Floor, Charkhey Walan, Delhi in the name of M/s Kishore Metal Works. Thus, petitioner has been able to establish that the ground floor portion as stated by the respondent is not in his occupation and possession. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been able to show he is having no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for the business purposes for his daughter in Delhi.
Bonafide Requirement
19. The stand of the petitioner is that he bonafidely requires the tenanted premises as his daughter wants to carry on the business of stationary, cards etc. The said daughter is aged about 55 years, resides with the petitioner and is dependent upon the petitioner. The version of the respondent is that the petitioner has nowhere disclosed as to what his daughter was doing after her graduation in the year 1976 till date and under what circumstances, now at the age of 55 years, his daughter thinks about doing of alleged business all of a E40/12 Page 9/19 sudden. The daughter of the petitioner is independent since her graduation. The petitioner is receiving rent from his real son then how one can believe that he will give any other accommodation to his daughter rent free.
20. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta VI (1999) SLT 163 = (1999) 6 SCC 222 wherein, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that : "12. A perusal of Section 14 of the Act shows that the law has imposed restrictions on the recovery of possession, of any premises by landlord from a tenant notwithstanding any law or contract to the contrary. However, an order for recovery of possession is permissible on one or more of the specified ground. One such ground is the premises let for residential purposes being required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him. What is a bonafide requirement is not defined in the Act. The words 'need' and 'require' both denote a certain degree of want with a thrust within demanding fulfilment. 'Need' or 'requirement' qualified by word 'bonafide' or 'genuine' preceding as an adjectiveis an expression often used in Rent Control Laws. 'Bonafide or genuine need' of the landlord or that the landlord 'genuinely requires' or "requires bonafide" an accommodation for occupation by or use for himself is an accepted ground for eviction and such expression is often employed by Rent Control legislation draftsman. The two expressions are interchangeable in practice and carry the same E40/12 Page 10/19 meaning."
13. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bonafide to mean "in good faith: genuine". The word 'genuine' means 'natural; not spurious; real" pure: sincere'. In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley defines bonafide to mean 'good faith, without fraud or deceit'. Thus the term bonafide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by 'requires' is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase 'required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the Rent Control Legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of landlord and its bona fides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the court. The Judge of facts should place himself in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bona fide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, E40/12 Page 11/19 positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bona fides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against."
21. In R.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Sushila Bhargav, 1986 RLR 232, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed vide para no. 9 & 10 as under :
9. The converse of the foregoing legal position would equally hold good inasmuch as an increase in the family of the landlord may justify need for additional accommodation even though the landlord has acquired some more accommodation E40/12 Page 12/19 during the pendency of eviction proceedings or appeal. As would be seen from the affidavit of the respondent, adverted to above, at least two rooms will be required by her eldest son Vijay Kumar and his children, both of whom are school going. Likewise, two rooms will be required by her son Kapil Bhargava. No doubt, both his children are very young at present but even then they will need a separate room for their studies etc. as they grow in age. But even assuming that they can sleep in the room of their parents for the present, the need of the respondentlandlady for additional accommodation, as shall be presently seen is still there. One room each will be required by the respondent for herself and her two married daughters who, as stated above, are at present living with her. It is true that in Hindu society married daughters are not normally considered to be members of the family of their parents and strictly speaking they cannot be said to be dependent on their parents for residence. However, the concept of family is not that rigid as to always exclude the married daughters from the family of their parents inasmuch as there can be genuine cases where married daughters are in fact living with their parents for one reason or the other and they may be said to be dependent on their parents for residential accommodation. It is now well settled that the expression "family" has to be interpreted reasonably and fairly giving the due regard to the social, religious and economic conditions of life in our country as also peculiar circumstances of each case. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Gobind Dass v. Kuldip Singh, 1970 R.C.R. 511, an extended meaning is to be given to the word "family". Observed the Division Bench :
"The word "family" has not been defined in the Act and we feel advisedly so. Te concept of what constitutes a family when a number of persons are related or are living together is not something static or capable of concise definition. What constitutes a family in a given set of circumstances or in a particular society depends upon the habits and ideas of persons constituting that society and the religious and socio E40/12 Page 13/19 religious customs of the community to which such persons may belong."
10. Their Lordships further said that, "A remote relation may, in a given set of circumstances, be treated as a member of the family, whereas in another set of circumstances the same relation may not be legitimately called as a member of the family." In Lala Ram v. Kalawati, 1975 R.L.R. (Note) 112, the landlady was living in the house with her married daughter and her husband as a family. It was held by Yogeshwar Dayal, J. that "the requirement of the daughter and her husband will be treated as the requirement of the landlady". I am in respectful agreement with this observation of his Lordship. So, having regard to the fact that both the married daughters who have been living continuously with the respondent because they could not live with their husbands for some reason or the other will be deemed to be members of her family. On a parity of reasoning they will also be considered to be dependent on her for residential accommodation even though both of them are earning hands. It is now well settled that the word "dependent" cannot be construed as wholly dependent in the sense of earning nothing at all and being entirely dependent on parents for board, lodging or maintenance but in the context in which that term appears in S14(1) (e) it connotes a wider concept and covers a larger field. So, it takes in a person who is not financially dependent upon the landlord but who would in the normal course look up to the landlord to provide him with the facility of a house possessed by the landlord; though in strict legal parlance dependent may mean looking up for support or finance. So looked at the matter from this angle, both the married daughters of the respondent can well be said to be members of her family. Even though both of them are earning hands they have to look to their parents for residential accommodation because they are not living with their husbands and for reasons of security etc. they would be E40/12 Page 14/19 finding it difficult to live all alone at Delhi and set up an independent establishment of their own.
22. In "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta", 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 231 (Delhi), it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that children are very much dependent on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and such a requirement is a bonafide one. If the respondent wished to settle her sons and grandsons, and she required accommodation for the same, it could not be said to be malafide on her part.
23. The right of landlord for possession of his/her property for setting up a business for his son has also been recognized by the Apex Court in "Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das", 2009 (2) RCR 455.
24. The moral duty of a parent to help, establish his/her son has also been recognized by the Apex Court in "Joginder Pal Singh Vs. Naval Kishore Behal", AIR 2002 SC 2256 in the following words:
"24.... Keeping in view the social or socioreligious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be a obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of landlord. If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the court shall with circumspection E40/12 Page 15/19 inquire: (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close interrelation or identify nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of first query. Applying the overlaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlord's son who is a chartered accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent."
25. In 2008. Rajdhani Law Reporter. 75 (SC) titled as Yadvendra Arya Vs. Mukesh Gupta, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "If owner's son is sitting idle and he is able and needs tenanted premises, then it is a bonafide need. When Court is satisfied by objective assessment, it must leave the matter to subjective assessment of owner. Another vacant shop if unsuitable is irrelevant. Landlord is the best judge of his needs. Rent Act does not confer undeserved benefits on tenants. Court must not make short sighted parochial approach. Tenant should not be given undeserved benefits and preferences to avoid unconstitutional invalidity of Rent Act. When Rent Act allows eviction on some ground, Court must not stretch or strain language to deny relief to landlord. Law is heavily loaded in favour of tenants. As landlords are also weak, feeble and humble, Courts should not hesitate to lean in their favour. When landlord seek eviction, he looses rental income and Court must not hasten to imagine it to be a ruse. Protection to tenant stands lifted as landlord really needed premises."
E40/12 Page 16/19
26. Let us see the bonafide requirement of the petitioner keeping in view the aforesaid authorities. The contention of the respondent that the daughter of the petitioner is independent since her graduation is not much convincing keeping in view the fact that she is unmarried and has been living with her father (Election ICard of the daughter is on record to suggest that she is living with the petitioner). Therefore, she can be said to be dependent on her father for accommodation purposes for setting up her own business. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner has not disclosed as to what his daughter was doing after her graduation in the year 1976 till date and now at the age of 55 his daughter thinks about doing of business all of a sudden is not having much force as during the course of argument Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has explained that the daughter of the petitioner is unmarried and has been managing the domestic affairs of the family. Now petitioner is more than 70 years of age and within his lifetime, he wants to make her daughter economically independent.
27. Therefore, wish of the petitioner to settle down his unmarried daughter so as to make her economically independent cannot be said to be unreasonable or unnatural. It is natural to have such a wish by old persons in our society.
28. In 2010 (2) RCR 5, Patna High Court titled as "Deena Nath Prasad Vs. Smt. Roopa Devi", it has been held that age is no bar to start a business. Therefore, intestion of petitioner's daughter at age of 55 cannot be questioned. The contention of the respondent that petitioner is receiving rent E40/12 Page 17/19 from his real son then how can it be believed that he will give accommodation to his daughter rent free is also not having much force as it is the prerogative of the petitioner being his family matter. The contention of the respondent that the petition has not been properly verified and not accompanied with a properly sworn affidavit as the petition is dated 30.04.2011 and the same has been verified on 30.04.2012 and in the affidavit age of petitioner has been mentioned as 70 years whereas as per Election ICard his age should be 78 years is also not having much force as perusal of record reveals that the date in the petition at one place is 30.04.2012 and at one place date is 30.04.2011, therefore, it can be said a typographical mistake. The age of the petitioner is a matter of record.
29. The authorities relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the respondent is not applicable to the facts of the present petition.
30. Therefore, in view of the abovesaid authorities, bonafide requirement of the petitioner of the tenanted premises for setting up a business of his unmarried dependent daughter in the same premises where petitioner is living with her daughter cannot be termed as mere wish or desire. Rather, the requirement of the petitioner is bonafide and genuine.
31. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the respondents have failed to put forth any triable issue which requires investigation or requires recording of evidence. In other words, primafacie there is nothing on record which would disentitle the petitioner of the right of immediate possession of the tenanted premises.
E40/12 Page 18/19
32. With these observations, application of the respondent under Section 25B (4) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of godown measuring 18' X 12' in property No. 3862, Gali Kayasthan, Charkhe Walan, Near Chawri Bazar, Delhi110006 as shown in red lines in the siteplan attached with the petition. This order shall not be executable before expiry of six months from the date of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH )
on 10.09.2013 Administrative Civil JudgeCum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi/10.09.2013
E40/12 Page 19/19
E40/2012
10.09.2013
Pr: None.
Vide separate order, application of the respondents for leave to defend is dismissed. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of godown measuring 18' X 12' in property No. 3862, Gali Kayasthan, Charkhe Walan, Near Chawri Bazar, Delhi110006 as shown in red lines in the siteplan attached with the petition. This order shall not be executable before expiry of six months from the date of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Sanjeev Kumar Singh) ACJ/ARC (Central)/Delhi 10.09.2013 E40/12 Page 20/19