Delhi High Court
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. vs Bawa Sandeep Singh And Ors. on 12 December, 1986
Equivalent citations: 31(1987)DLT251
JUDGMENT Jagdish Chandra, J.
(1) This revision is directed against the order dated 18th December, 1984 passed by Shri R.K. Sharma, Addl. Rent Controller whereby the two applications moved by the tenant-petitioner Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. and by respondents 2 to 8 asserting that the eviction petition of the landlords-respondents No. I and 2 did not disclose the cause of action and thus merited rejection, were dismissed.
(2) The perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Addl. Rent Controller referred not only to the averments made in the eviction petition but also to the letters referred to therein and then came to the conclusion that the objection under Order Vii Rule Ii Civil Procedure Code was not made out and was without any force.
(3) The perusal of the eviction petition shows that the premises in question were let out initially by the attorney of the petitioners to the tenant- respondent No. 1 where after the attorney allowed the tenant to induct in the premises in question its sister concerns whose names were supplied by the tenant and are mentioned in para No. 19(ii) of the petition. It is further alleged in the eviction petition that the tenant inducted into the premises in question some other persons also which were not the sister concerns. The eviction petition further alleges that even though the attorney bad the authority to let out the premises in question to the tenant it had no authority to further permit the tenant to induct in the premises in question the sister concerns and further that even otherwise the induction of some persons by the tenant who were not the sister concerns was tantamount to parting with possession etc. of the premises on the part of respondent No. 1 especially when it was made clear to him even by the attorney that even though the tenant would be entitled to induct the above mentioned persons being sister concerns, they would have nothing to do with the tenancy and the tenancy would remain only with respondent No. 1. Looking from the averments made in the eviction petition it cannot be said that the petition does not disclose any cause of action. While dealing with this question of disclosing of a cause of action under Order Vii Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code the court has to look only to the pleadings in the plaint/petition and to nothing else. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that for disposing of the objection under Order Vii Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code the learned Rent Controller was under an obligation to record the statements of the petitioners at the earliest under Order X Civil Procedure Code and then should have come to the finding regarding the disclosure or otherwise of the cause of action from the eviction petition and for this purpose she relies upon T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another, Air 1977 Supreme Court 2421. The perunal of para No. 5 of this authority does not at all help the learned counsel for the revisionist inasmuch as it nowhere says that to decide the objection raised under Order Vii Rule Ii Civil Procedure Code the court must also record the statement of the plaintiff/petitioner so as to be read along with the averments made in the plaint/petition. What it means to lay down is that on reading a plaint if it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should exercise its power under Order Vii Rule Ii Civil Procedure Code and at that stage the plaint/petition can be rejected outright. This authority then goes on to lay down that if from the drafting of the plaint an illusion of a cause of action is created, the plaintiff should be examined at the earliest under Order X Civil Procedure Code so as to nip the evil in the bud at the first hearing. Thus, the examination of the plaintiff under Order X Civil Procedure Code pertains to a different and a subsequent stage and is not an integral part of Order Vii Rule Ii Civil Procedure Code and thus for acting under Order Vii Rule Ii Civil Procedure Code the court is under no obligation to record the statement of the plaintiff under Order X. This authority was dealing with the vexatious alleged cause of action and to nip the same in the bud at the earliest under Order Vii Rule 11 if to the court the cause of action does not appear to be made out from the plaint. It is only when there is an illusion of the existence of a cause of action in the plaint, that the court is directed to examine the plaintiff at the first hearing under Order X so as to enable the court to came to the conclusion that the plaint is only vexatious and that in fact does not disclose any cause of action and then the suit can be dismissed. So, this authority is of no avail to the learned counsel for the revisionist.
(4) There is, thus, no justification to interfere in the impugned order subject-matter of this revision and so the revision petition is dismissed in liming with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 200.00 . Revision Petition dismissed that though the certificate indicates that the clinic of Dr. Shiv Nath Singh was situated at Sadar Bazar, in his statement. Dr. Shiv Nath Singh has stated that he lives in Green Park and, therefore, his deposition should be disregarded. He also referred to the statement of Aw 1 Ashok Kumar made on oath to show that the wife of respondent no. 1 and the mother of respondent no. 2 was in good health and since he stayed in the same building, he could see this lady doing all her household works without difficulty. It was submitted that though Dr. Shiv Nath Singh had given the certificate that the wife of respondent no. I was suffering from chronic sort of Asthama, she did not require the premises on ground floor. A particular emphasis was laid on the fact that neither respondent no. I nor his wife came in the wilness box and, therefore, the evidence of respondent no. 2 bad to be disregarded and the certificate given by Dr. Shiv Nath Singh remained uncorroborated.
(5) I do not think the discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the certificate can in any way improve his case because these discrepancies are of a very minor nature. Moreover, no question in this regard was put to Dr. Shiv Nath Singh in the cross-examination. This witness has categorically stated that it would be advisable for the lady to live on the ground floor. Moreover, the fact that she is aged is not denied by the petitioner. I also find no force in the contention that because respondent no. 1 and his wife were not examined the evidence of respondent no. 2 has to be disregarded. Respondent no. 2 is the son of respondent no. I and the lady is his mother. He would thus equally be aware of the health of his mother. Since the doctor was also examined no further corroboration was necessary. It cannot, therefore, be said that the finding of the court below regarding bona fide need of the respondents is perverse.
(6) In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. However, since the petitioner has been residing in the premises for long number of years, he is given six months time to vacate the premises. No costs.