Delhi High Court - Orders
Shiv Kumar Aggarwal vs Harijan Sewak Sangh on 7 July, 2022
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~58 (Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 627/2022 & CM APPL. 29553/2022, CM APPL.
29554/2022
SHIV KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Dahiya and Ms. Nisha
Dahiya, Advs.
versus
HARIJAN SEWAK SANGH ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 07.07.2022 CM APPL. 29554/2022 in CM(M) 627/2022
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 627/2022 & CM APPL. 29553/2022
3. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 30th January 2018 and 10th May 2022, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge in RCT 11/2017 (Shiv Kumar Aggarwal v. Harijan Sewak Sangh) and in an application filed under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("the DRC Act", in short), for recall of the order dated 30th January 2018 respectively.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 627/2022 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:12.07.2022 11:10:254. The proceedings emanate from an eviction petition preferred by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 22 of the DRC Act read with Section 14(1)(i). The case that the respondent sought to make out against the petitioner was that the petitioner was the respondent's employee and that he had continued to occupy a quarter which was allotted to him during his employment with the respondent, even after the petitioner had been terminated.
5. The eviction petition was allowed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (the learned ARC) vide judgment dated 29th April 2017 in E. No. 5440/2016. The learned ARC directed the petitioner to vacate the premises in question, namely, House No. 36, Property no. 4, Gandhi Ashram, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
6. The aforesaid judgment dated 30th January 2018 of the learned ARC was affirmed in appeal by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, acting as RCT, in RCT No. 11/2017 (Shiv Kumar Aggarwal v. Harijan Sewak Sangh).
7. For the present, it is not necessary to enter into the details of the said judgment, as the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid judgment before this Court by way of CM(M) 346/2018 ((Shiv Kumar Aggarwal v. Harijan Sewak Sangh) which was disposed of by the following order, passed by a coordinate Single Bench of this Court on 23rd March 2018:
"After some hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be allowed to withdraw the present petition and the applications filed therewith and instead be Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 627/2022 Page 2 of 4 Signing Date:12.07.2022 11:10:25 given liberty to approach the first appellate Court by way of review petition placing before it the documents pertaining to the industrial dispute pending before the Industrial Tribunal on the issue of invalidity of the termination of his services.
The petition and the applications filed therewith are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for granted."
8. Acting on the liberty granted by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an application before the learned RCT for recall and reconsideration of the impugned order dated 30th January 2018. It was contended, inter alia by the petitioner in the said application that, after passing of the order dated 30th January 2018 supra, the learned Industrial Tribunal had held the termination of the petitioner's services to be illegal. Thus, the petitioner sought to contend, that he could not be said to be in unauthorised occupation of the residential accommodation allotted to him.
9. The aforesaid application has come to be rejected by the learned RCT vide the second impugned order dated 10th May 2022.
10. A reading of the impugned order, however, discloses that the learned RCT has not examined the aforesaid contention of the petitioner regarding the decision of the learned Industrial Tribunal and the impact that it would have, if any, on the earlier judgment passed on 30th January 2018. Rather, the learned RCT has proceeded on the premise that the application was filed under Section 40 of the DRC Act, which permitted correction only of clerical or arithmetical errors and that, therefore, the learned RCT could not review its order on merits.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 627/2022 Page 3 of 4 Signing Date:12.07.2022 11:10:2511. This conclusion, prima facie, cannot sustain, as it would result in completely denuding the effect of the liberty granted by this Court on 23rd March 2018, to the petitioner, while disposing of CM(M) 346/2018.
12. As such, a prima facie case for interference is made out.
13. Issue notice, returnable on 1st November 2022.
14. Notice be served on the respondent by all modes including dasti as well as through learned Counsel who appeared on his behalf before the learned RCT, if any.
15. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks with advance copy to learned Counsel for the petitioner who may file rejoinder before the next date.
16. Till the next date of hearing, status quo regarding occupation, by the petitioner, of the aforesaid premises situated at House No. 36, Property no. 4, Gandhi Ashram, Kingsway Camp, Delhi shall be maintained.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J JULY 7, 2022 dsn Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 627/2022 Page 4 of 4 Signing Date:12.07.2022 11:10:25