Delhi District Court
Sanjay Sharma vs Kanta Kumari on 12 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
RCT ARCT No. 02/2024
1. Sanjay Sharma
S/o Late P. C. Sharma
R/o W-94, Greater Kailash-1,
New Delhi
2. Smt. Shashi Sharma
W/o Late P. C. Sharma
R/o W-94, Greater Kailash-1,
New Delhi
3. Smt. Namita Sharma
W/o Mr. Vinay Mehra
D/o Late P. C. Sharma
R/o S-555, Greater Kailash-1,
New Delhi-110048
4. Ms. Vanita Sharma
D/o Late P. C. Sharma
R/o W-94, Greater Kailash-1,
New Delhi
...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Kanta Kumari
W/o Late Sh. Ram Swarup
R/o B-168, Nirman Vihar,
Vikas Marg, New Delhi-110092
...Respondent
First date before this court : 28.02.2024
Arguments heard on : 06.04.2024
Date of pronouncement : 12.04.2024
JUDGMENT:
RCT ARCT No. 02/2024
Sanjay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Kanta Kumari Page No. 1 of 5 By this order, I shall dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as "the DRC Act") assailing the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the court of learned ACJ-cum- CCJ-cum-ARC, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, whereby the application under Order XI Rule 1 and 2 CPC to deliver the interrogatories filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. I have heard the learned counsels for the appellants as well as the respondent and perused the file.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the trial court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjunctures which is against the law and the facts. The trial court has failed to appreciate the object of filing of interrogatories as its purpose is to brought on record certain facts which are essential for the decision of the application for leave to defend. Section 36(2) of the DRC Act which is a substantive provision confers power to allow interrogatories to be served to the respondent and direct answering the same. Section 25B of the DRC Act is a procedural provision and it cannot be read in a manner as to exclude the application of Section 36(2) of the DRC Act. It is prayed that as the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law so it be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is also not maintainable against the impugned order. It is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
4. The application under Order XI Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been filed by the appellant in the petition under Section 14(1)(e) RCT ARCT No. 02/2024 Sanjay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Kanta Kumari Page No. 2 of 5 read with Section 25B of the DRC Act.
5. It is relevant here to mention the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Nirula Handicrafts Bazar Pvt. Ltd. (2011 SCC OnLine Del 4462) which is as follows :
"The impugned order is dated 5.6.2010 whereby the application filed by the tenant under Order 11 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 36(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "DRCA") had been dismissed. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed, under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the DRCA. The impugned order had dismissed the application holding that the procedure contained for dealing with a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA is the procedure enlisted in Section 25(B) of the said Act. By the present application the tenant had sought to put interrogatories to the landlord. Court had noted that this argument can be raised by the tenant even in his application for leave to defend. The impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity.
2. In Pritpal Singh v. Satpal Singh, 2010 RLR 15 (SC), the Apex Court has noted that the procedure for dealing with an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA is contained in Section 25(B) of the said Act which is a complete Code in itself. The Apex Court had noted that Rule 23 of the DRCA is not applicable to the special class of landlords as has been enlisted under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA. Rule 23 is only a guideline being a general rule by which the Rent Controller in deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided by the Act can in those circumstances be guided by the Code. Impugned order dismissing the present RCT ARCT No. 02/2024 Sanjay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Kanta Kumari Page No. 3 of 5 application petition that such an application is not maintainable under Section 25(B) of the DRCA does not in any manner suffer from infirmity. Petition is dismissed."
It has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bata India Ltd. Vs. Sarla Sharma & Ors., MANU/DE/0774/2021 as follows :
"27. A reading of the above quoted provisions of the Act as also the above-referred judgments, would clearly show that Section 25A of the Act gives primacy to the procedure contained in Section 25B of the Act for an Eviction Petition filed under Section 14(1)(e), or 14A, 14B, 14C or 14D of the Act, and a remedy of an appeal under Section 38 of the Act would not be available to the parties to such Eviction Petition against any order passed in exercise of such procedure. However, in such a petition, if an order passed by the learned Rent Controller is not traceable to the special procedure prescribed in Section 25B of the Act, a remedy of an appeal under Section 38 of the Act, if otherwise available in Eviction Petitions or proceedings filed under other provisions of the Act, shall be available to the parties."
6. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Nirula Handicrafts Bazar Pvt. Ltd. is applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the trial court dismissing the application of the appellant under Order XI Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
The impugned order has been passed by the trial court in exercise of the procedure contained in Section 25B of the DRC RCT ARCT No. 02/2024 Sanjay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Kanta Kumari Page No. 4 of 5 Act. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Bata India Ltd. Vs. Sarla Sharma & Ors., the present appeal is not maintainable under Section 38 of the DRC Act.
7. In view of the above discussions, the appeal is dismissed being without any merits and also not maintainable.
8. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court.
9. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
RAJNEESH Digitally signed by
RAJNEESH KUMAR
KUMAR GUPTA
Date: 2024.04.12
GUPTA 12:13:58 +0530
Announced in the open Court (RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA) Today, on 12.04.2024 Principal District & Sessions Judge Rent Control Tribunal South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi RCT ARCT No. 02/2024 Sanjay Sharma & Ors. Vs. Kanta Kumari Page No. 5 of 5