Delhi High Court - Orders
Joginder Singh vs Yogesh Narain Gupta & Ors on 12 May, 2020
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 145/2020
JOGINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ruchika Mittal, Advocate
versus
YOGESH NARAIN GUPTA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 12.05.2020 CM APPL. 10801/2020
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
RC.REV. 145/2020 with CM APPL.10800/2020
1. Issue notice. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner may serve the respondents through counsel who appeared for them in the Trial Court by all possible means, including email and WhatsApp. Learned counsel will file an affidavit of service to this effect within ten days.
2. The revision petition is directed against a judgment of the Additional Rent Controller, Tis Hazari District Courts dated 04.12.2019, rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for leave to defend the eviction proceedings.
3. The petitioner claims to have been in occupation of the premises since the year 1947, i.e. for the last 72 years. It is contended that the RC.REV. 145/2020 Page 1 of 2 premises were taken by the petitioner's father from the Custodian of Evacuees' Properties. A specific case has been made out that the sale deed dated 15.07.2010 relied upon by the respondent/landlord is a doubtful document, inter alia because the area of the premises has been mentioned as 146 sq.yds. rather than the actual area of 40 sq.yds.
4. Further, Ms. Ruchika Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to two rent receipts relied upon by the respondent herein. The name of the tenant referred to therein is Shri Avtar Singh, who was the father of the petitioner. The first of these rent receipts is apparently dated 16.02.1988 (for the period 01.07.1986 to 31.12.1987) and also appears to bear the signature of the tenant. The second (undated) is for the period 01.07.1986 to 31.12.1986. However, Ms. Mittal points out that the petitioner's father had in fact died on 27.12.1983, which demonstrates the dubious nature of the documents. She submits that these aspects have not been considered in the impugned judgment.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim relief. It is therefore directed that until the next date of hearing, the operation of the impugned judgment dated 04.12.2019 shall remain stayed.
6. The respondent may file a counter-affidavit within two weeks after service. The petitioner may file a rejoinder within one week thereafter.
7. List on 15.06.2020.
PRATEEK JALAN, J MAY 12, 2020/ 'j' RC.REV. 145/2020 Page 2 of 2