Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Mr. Naved Yar Khan vs Mr. Hayat Yar Khan on 29 March, 2022

     IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA: ADDITIONAL
      DISTRICT JUDGE CENTRAL -03: TIS HAZARI COURTS:
                          DELHI

MCA DJ No. 62/18
CNR No. DLCT01-010460-2018
In the matter of :-

Mr. Naved Yar Khan,
S/o (Late) Mr. Sultan Yar Khan
R/o 2346, Mahagun Mascot,
Crossings Republic,
Ghaziabad - 201009.                                     ... Appellants
                                     Vs.

1.      Mr. Hayat Yar Khan
        S/o Late Mr. Sultan Yar Khan
        R/o, 29A, St. 28C, Al Garhoud, Dubai, U.A.E.
        (service to be effected
        on holder of his GPA
        Mr. Ram Lal s/o Mr. Chottey Lal
        R/o B-2, Nizamuddin East
        New Delhi)

2.      Mr. Ram Lal
        S/o Shri Chhote Lal
        R/o B-2, Nizammuddin East,
        New Delhi.                               ... Respondents

Date of institution of the appeal    :     26.04.2018
Date on which order was reserved     :     28.03.2022
Date of decision                     :     29.03.2022
Conclusion                           :     Dismissed

JUDGMENT

1. Present is an appeal filed by appellant under Section 341 CrPC MCA DJ No. 62/18 Page No. 1 of 6 against the order of Ld. Trial Court dated 23.05.2018 wherein the application filed by appellant under section 340 CrPC was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court.

The Case of Appellant

2. It is the case of the appellant that he is next friend of his sister Ms. Rubina Sultan who is under disability. He instituted the present eviction petition against respondent who is tenant. An application under Section 340 CrPC was filed by him before the Ld. Trial Court against respondents nos. 1 and 2 which was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 23.05.2018.

The Grounds of Appeal.

3. It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that Rent Controller is not a Court. Hence application under section 340 CrPC is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the judgment relied upon by Ld. Trial Court is not applicable in the present case as the said was a judgment passed by the said Court under East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act 1949 while the present proceedings were under a new and different Act. It has been held by various Courts time and again that Rent Controller is a Court.

The Case of the Respondents

4. Reply to the present appeal has been filed by present respondent MCA DJ No. 62/18 Page No. 2 of 6 thereby denying the averment made in the appeal. It is also submitted by Counsel for respondent that though the application under Section 340 CrPC was maintainable before the Ld. Rent Controller but it has been rightly rejected on merits as eviction petition was dismissed. All the averments made in the application have been denied.

The Reasons For Decision

5. I have heard Counsel for appellant and gone through the record including the written submissions filed.

6. Ld. Trial Court has dismissed Section 340 CrPC application filed by appellant thereby making the following observations:-

"Perusal of the record shows that no application for being appointed the next friend has been moved by Naved Yar Khan. However, as per Iqbal Singh v. Veeran Narang 2011 (2) RCR 616 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that Rent Controller is not a Court and the complaint under Section 340 Cr.PC cannot be made. Also in my the opinion it is not expedient in the interest of justice to make an enquiry against the Naved Yar Khan. Accordingly, the present application under Section 340 Cr.PC moved on behalf of the respondents stands dismissed."

7. The Ld. Trial Court has passed the above mentioned order on the basis of judgment of "Iqbal Singh v. Veeran Narang" 2011 (2) RCR 616 which was with respect to proceedings before Rent Controller under East Punjab Urban Restrictions 1949 while the proceedings before the present Rent Controller were under Delhi Rent Control Act 1958.

8. It is relevant to quote here the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as "Jaintendra Kumar Aggarwal vs. Lakshmi Kant Mukt.", decided on 05 November 1973, 1974 CrilJ1140 wherein it was held that:

"(1) The question referred to the full bench for decision is whether the Rent Control Tribunal while dealing with an application under sub-

section (4) of section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called "the Act") is a "Court" for purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a "Civil Court"

within the meaning of section 476 of the said Code. (34) In the result, therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal was in error in taking the view that it was not a "Court" within the meaning of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was not competent to make a complaint in respect of the false averments made in the transfer application and the supporting affidavit. But having regard to the fact that a period of over five years has already lapsed, we do not consider it proper, in the circumstances of the case, to order that the matter be pursued by lodging the complaint at this late stage."

9. In view of the above judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it is well settled law that Rent Controller is Court within in the meaning of Section 195 of CrPC. Hence Rent Controller is a 'Court' who can entertain and try the application under Section 340 CrPC.

10. Further it was also observed by Ld. Trial Court that in the opinion of Ld. Trial Court, it is not expedient in the interest of justice to make any inquiry. Further as was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above quoted judgment that as the period of five-years has already lapsed, it was not considered appropriate to order that the matter be pursued by lodging the complaint at this late stage.

11. In the present case also four-years have elapsed since the date when this application under section 340 CrPC was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court. At this stage late stage, I also do not deem it appropriate that the matter be referred back to the ld. Trial Court to reconsider the application under section 340 CrPC on merit again, especially when an observation of Ld. Trial Court had already come that she did not deem it expedient in the interest of justice to make an inquiry on this application. Hence no purpose would be served by remanding the matter back to the Ld. Trial Court.

12. Further I have perused the averments made in the 340 CrPC application. Vague allegations are made which are yet to be established by way of evidence. Further a complaint under section 340CrPC may be made in the interest of justice and not to satisfy personal grudges of the parties. Personal motivated complaints should be discouraged.

13. In view of above observations, the appeal filed by appellants is hereby dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back. Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial court alongwith trial court record.

14. Appeal filed be consigned to record room after due compliance.

                                                                Digitally signed
                                                                by TWINKLE
                                                      TWINKLE   WADHWA
                                                      WADHWA    Date: 2022.03.29
                                                                15:18:49 +0200



Announced in the open Court                     (Twinkle Wadhwa)
On this 29th Day of March'2022                 Ld. ADJ-03, Central
                                              THC/Delhi/29.03.2022




MCA DJ No. 62/18                                                               Page No. 6 of 6