Delhi District Court
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Satish Chander Budhiraja (T.C.680003) on 1 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHALINDER KAUR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KKD COURTS, DELHI
PPA No.02/2019
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
Having its Northern Zonal Office at:
Jeevan Bharti Building, Tower-II,
124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.
.....APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. SATISH CHANDER BUDHIRAJA (T.C.680003)
483/49-B, Ground Floor,
Shahdara Plot, Delhi Shahdara Border,
G.T. Road, U.P. Border,
Delhi-110095.
2. ESTATE OFFICER
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Northern Zone, Jeevan Prakash Building
2 nd Floor (Mezzanine),
25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110001. .....RESPONDENTS
Date of filing the appeal : 07.01.2019
Date of Decision : 01.10.2022
JUDGMENT
1. An appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) 1971 (hereinafter referred as "the PP Act") has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 09.05.2018, passed by the then Estate Officer Sh. M.L. Meena whereby the petition under Section 5 & PPA No.02/19 LIC vs. Satisch Chander Budhiraja & Anr. Page 1 of 9 7 of PP Act filed by the petitioner/appellant herein against the respondents was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant also filed an application under Section 151 CPC for recalling the order dated 09.05.2018, notice of which was served on respondent no.1 by way of affixation on 04.06.2018. The said application was also dismissed by the Estate Officer Sh. R.K. Gupta vide order dated 19.11.2018.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are; the appellant claimed himself to be the lawful owner of premises bearing No. 483/49-B, Ground Floor, Shahdara Plot, Delhi Shahdara Border, G.T. Road, U.P. Border, Delhi-110095. The respondent no.1 was inducted as a tenant in respect of ground floor of the said property at a monthly rent of Rs.144/- plus service tax, electricity, water charges etc. The tenancy of respondent no.1 was on month to month basis commencing on the 1st day of each English Calender Month and ending on the last day of the same month. However, the respondent neither paid the rent nor tendered the other dues. The arrears of rent, service tax and other dues w.e.f.01.11.2004 to 30.06.2017 amounting to Rs.42,926/- have not been paid by the respondent despite the service of show cause notice dated 01.03.2017 and despite repeated requests by the appellant. The appellant sent a legal notice dated 17/19.07.2017 through Advocate calling upon the respondent to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the aforesaid premises on 31.08.2017 or in the morning of 01.09.2017. The said notice was duly served on respondent no.1 PPA No.02/19 LIC vs. Satisch Chander Budhiraja & Anr. Page 2 of 9 and the tenancy stood terminated on 31.08.2017. However, the respondent no.1 failed and neglected to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises and thus, he is in unauthorized occupation of the premises in question. Consequently, the appellant filed a petition under Section 5 & 7 of the PP Act before respondent no.2 for eviction of the respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 issued a show cause notice under Section 4(1) of PP Act which was served on respondent no.1 through affixation. Respondent no.2 recorded exparte evidence without passing an order of proceeding exparte against respondent no.1 and dismissed the petition of the appellant vide order dated 09.05.2018. Respondent no.2 observed that the appellant failed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2018, the appellant moved an application under Section 151 CPC for recalling the order dated 09.05.2018, notice of which was served on respondent no.1 by way of affixation on 04.06.2018, but respondent no.1 did not appear to contest the application. However, the said application was also dismissed by the Estate Officer vide order dated 19.11.2018.
3. The appellant has filed the present appeal praying for recalling the order dated 09.05.2018 and 19.11.2018, passed by the aforesaid Estate Officers. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of Limitation Act read with Section 9(2) of PP Act has also been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
PPA No.02/19 LIC vs. Satisch Chander Budhiraja & Anr. Page 3 of 94. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has also preferred an application under Section 107 read with Order 41 Rule 25 & 27 for leading additional evidence with respect to Annexure P1 to P9 with permission to file additional documents and affidavits whch was declined by the Ld. Estate Officer vide order dated 19.11.2018.
5. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents. Respondent no.1 despite service of the notice of the appeal by way of affixation did not put in appearance to contest the appeal. Whereas, respondent no.2 had submitted the record of Estate Office pertaining to eviction petition filed by the appellant. By way of abundant caution, court notice was also issued to respondent no.1 which was received back with the report 'the premises found locked'.
6. Extensive arguments were addressed by Sh. G.K. Sharma, Advocate on both the applications as well as main appeal. Ld. Counsel submitted that after the Ld. Estate Officer had dismissed the petition of the appellant filed U/s 5 & 7 of PP Act, vide impugned order dated 09.05.2018, the appellant before filing the present appeal had preferred an application U/s 151 CPC, dated 19.05.2018, before the Ld. Estate Officer for recalling of the impugned order dated 09.05.2018. It was submitted that the Ld. Estate Officer dismissed the application in pulmonary manner vide order dated 19.11.2018. The said order was communicated in the office of the appellant on 01.12.2018 and the appellant had preferred the appeal within 12 days from the date of communication of the aforesaid order. The appellant had PPA No.02/19 LIC vs. Satisch Chander Budhiraja & Anr. Page 4 of 9 discussions with its legal department and decided to file an appeal on 01.12.2018 which was communicated to the Advocate on 14.12.2018. Till 14.12.2018, the counsel of the appellant could not take out of time as he was busy in some other urgent legal proceedings. Thereafter, the District Courts were closed due to winter vacations from 25.12.2018 to 02.01.2019. It was submitted that after approval of the final draft received from the Estate and legal department of the appellant, the present appeal could be preferred. It was submitted that in these circumstances the delay of 219 days in filing the appeal may be condoned. It was also submitted that the respondent had not appeared before the Ld. Estate Officer to contest the petition or the application moved by the appellant, therefore, no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent in case the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed.
7. Pertinently, The Limitation Act is a law of repose, peace and justice which bars the remedy to a person after completion of particular period of time as provided by law. The law of limitation has its basis to enhance the public policy and expediency without extinguishing any right in certain cases. The law of limitation specifies the stipulated time frame within which a person may initiate legal proceedings or a legal action, and if the proceedings are instituted after expiry of prescribed time period, it will be barred by limitation. Though, the Limitation Act bars the remedy, in certain circumstances there are provision to condone the delay, provided the concerned party satisfies the Court that he/she had sufficient cause not to prefer his legal right within the time frame provided by law.
PPA No.02/19 LIC vs. Satisch Chander Budhiraja & Anr. Page 5 of 98. In the present case to plead sufficient cause, the appellant (a body corporate constituted and established by the Life Insurance Act, 1956) has submitted that after dismissal of the eviction petition, the appellant was pursuing the application filed by it U/s 151 CPC before the Ld. Estate Officer. It was also submitted that the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by Ld. Estate Officer was communicated to the appellant on 27.11.2018, and it had to discuss about preferring an appeal with its legal department and all the formalities could be completed by 14.12.2018. It was further submitted that the counsel for the appellant was not available till 24.12.2018 and on account of winter vacations, the appeal could not be preferred during this period. The appeal finally has been preferred on 07.01.2018. Thus, in compendium the appellant has been able to show sufficient cause in not preferring the appeal within the prescribed statutory period of limitation, the application moved on behalf of the application U/s 5 r/w Section 14 of Limitation Act is allowed and the delay of 219 days in filing appeal is condoned.
9. In respect to the application moved under Order 41 Rule 25 & 27 CPC, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the impugned orders dated 09.05.2018 and 19.11.2018 be set aside and the case be remanded back to the Ld. Estate Officer for permitting the appellant to lead additional evidence. Perusal of the record shows that the same plea was raised by the appellant before the Ld. Estate Officer by moving an application U/s 151 CPC which was turned down by the Ld. Estate Officer vide order dated 19.11.2018 observing, "The present status of the case is functus officio i.e. once a court has passed a valid sentence after PPA No.02/19 LIC vs. Satisch Chander Budhiraja & Anr. Page 6 of 9 hearing which is lawful, it cannot reopen/recall the case under the PP Act 1971. Hence petitioner's application dated 19.05.2018 is declined".
10. It was submitted that despite due diligence the Annexures P1 to P9 mentioned in the application moved U/s 151 CPC could not be proved by the appellant before the Ld. Estate Officer at the time of recording of the evidence of the officials of the appellant. It was submitted that as the appellant has failed to prove the said documents, the same has resulted in great prejudice to the appellant thus the case be remanded back to the Ld. Estate Officer to prove the documents by leading additional evidence.
11. It is to be noted that the appellant had preferred a petition U/s Section 5 & 7 of the PP Act before the Ld. Estate Officer on 19.02.2018, seeking eviction of the respondent Sh. Satish Chander Budhiraja being an unauthorized occupant in the suit premises. The appellant had also prayed for recovery of rent and interest of delayed payment U/s 7 of PP Act. The contention of the appellant is that being the owner of the suit premises, it had instituted eviction proceedings against the respondent no.1 as the respondent being a tenant under the appellant had failed to make payment towards the arrears of rent since 30.06.2017. The respondent also failed to tender the arrears of rent with interest despite show cause notice dated 01.03.2017 was served upon him. During regular inspections made by the officials of the appellant corporation, it was found that the tenanted premises had been abandoned as locked by the respondent. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 17/19.07.2017 was issued and served by way of affixation on the respondent, but he failed to comply with the PPA No.02/19 LIC vs. Satisch Chander Budhiraja & Anr. Page 7 of 9 terms of the notice, accordingly the appellant had instituted the eviction proceedings before the Ld. Estate Officer. It is further contended that despite service of notice of the eviction petition, the respondent failed to appear and to contest the petition and was thus proceeded exparte by the Ld. Estate Officer on 19.04.2018. The appellant had led evidence by way of affidavit on 05.08.2018. It was submitted that despite due diligence exercised by the appellant, it failed to prove the Annexure P1 to P9, which are relevant to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was also submitted that the said documents were filed on record.
12. The paperbook filed on record by the appellant on 19.05.2018 alongwith an application U/s 151 CPC manifests that Annexures P1 to P9 were also placed on record. It is submitted that despite due diligence the said documents could not be filed alongwith the eviction petition or during the trial of the petition.
13. It is relevant to note that the respondent has not appeared to contest the eviction petition or the application moved U/s 151 CPC by the appellant. Therefore, no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent if the application moved by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 25 & 27 of CPC is allowed. The appellant is a corporate body and despite being diligent could not place the relevant documents on record at the appropriate state. Thus, it cannot be allowed to suffer on account of negligent and lax behaviour of its officials/officer.
14. To sum up, in totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the application moved by the appellant under Order 41 Rule PPA No.02/19 LIC vs. Satisch Chander Budhiraja & Anr. Page 8 of 9 25 & 27 of CPC is allowed. The impugned orders passed by Ld. Estate Officer dated 09.05.2018 and 19.11.2018 are set aside. The case is remanded back to the Ld. Estate Officer with the directions to afford only one opportunity to the appellant to lead the additional evidence with respect only to Annexure P1 to P9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of this judgment. Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Estate Officer on 15.10.2022. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT On 1 st October 2022 (SHALINDER KAUR) PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/ RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI PPA No.02/19 LIC vs. Satisch Chander Budhiraja & Anr. Page 9 of 9