Delhi District Court
M/S R.P. Electronics vs I). Ramesh Chand on 31 January, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: DELHI
(FAST TRACK COURT)
RCA No. 82/06
M/s R.P. Electronics
Through its Authorized Signatory
7/9, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi-110002. .....Appellant.
Versus
i). Ramesh Chand
ii). Sh. Dinesh Chand
iii). Sh. Sneh Jain
All sons of Late Rajender Prasad Jain
All R/o 5-A, Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. .....Respondents.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2006 passed by the Ld. Trial Court whereby the suit bearing no.40/06 titled as Ramesh Chand Vs. R.P. Electronics was decreed in favour of respondent/plaintiff and against the appellant/defendant. The present appeal has been filed on 22.08.2006.
2. The facts of the case as per pleadings before the Ld. Trial Court are that the respondents herein filed a suit for possession and recovery of Rs.28,000/- against the appellant herein in respect of tenanted premises at ground floor in the property bearing no.5-A/123, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. It was alleged in the plaint that the appellant is a tenant in respect of the tenanted premises on a monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- other than the electricity and water charges and the appellant has recently carried out addition and alteration without permission of the respondent and put water tank and also sub let one room to the staff nurse of Sant Permanand Hospital.
3. The appellant herein contested the suit by filing the Written statement in which it was claimed that the respondent has not served the proper and valid notice of termination of tenancy and further vide memorandum of understanding dated 18.10.2002, the respondents confirmed and agreed to accommodate the staff of Sant Permanand Hospital. The allegations and averments made in the plaint were refuted by the appellant.
4. The plaintiff filed the replication to the Written Statement of defendant reiterating the contents of the plaint to be correct.
5. After completion of pleading, following issues were framed on 10.12.2003:-
i). Whether no legal land valid notice of termination or tenancy was served upon the defendant, if so, its effect? OPD.
ii). Whether the plaintiff has not locus standi to file the present suit?
OPD.
iii). Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
iv). Whether the defendant has carried out any addition or alteration in the tenanted portion, if so, whether the said construction as alleged has led to any damage to the property? OPD.
v). Whether the defendant has sublet the portion so constructed?
OPP.
vi). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession as prayed for? OPP.
vii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs.28,000/- as prayed for? OPP.
viii). Relief.
6. Subsequently on 15.12.2005, the following additional issue was framed:-
''Whether the suit is barred U/s 4 and 5 of DRC Act?'' OPD.
7. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff no.1 & 2 appeared in the witness box as PW-1 & PW-2, whereas Sh. Bhupender Kumar DGM (Finance) got recorded his statement as DW-1 on behalf of the defendant.
8. After hearing the submissions of the parties, by the impugned judgment and decree, suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in their favour and against the defendant whereby the defendant has been directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit propety i.e. one hall, two rooms, two toilets and one bath room on the ground floor, a portion of property bearing municipal no. 5- A/123, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi as shown red in the Site Plan alongwith arrears of rent of Rs.14,000/- @ Rs.7,000/- per month. It was also observed that the question of entitlement of the plaintiff for damages can be decided vide separate proceeding U/o 20 R 12 of CPC. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred the present appeal on 22.08.2006 on the following grounds:-
i). The impugned judgment and decree has been passed in biased manner without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant was not given opportunity of leading arguments on merits. Further the arguments on the application U/o 16 R 1 CPC dated 18.05.2006, application U/o 18 R 17 CPC dated 12.07.2006 and application U/o 47 CPC dated 18.07.2006 were never advanced by the appellant nor the opportunity for the same was granted by the Ld. Trial Court and it has been wrongly mentioned by the Ld. Trial Court that the arguments on the applications were heard.
ii). The impugned judgment was passed in haste manner without giving proper opportunity to the appellant and without considering the facts and law much less in respect of alleged corrigendum dated 20.05.2006 which is Ex.PW1/3, the alleged corrigendum is out of the pleadings and the same is not mentioned in the plaint nor the same has been admitted by the appellant. There was also one memorandum of undertaking Ex.PW1/D-1 which falsified the alleged notice Ex.PW1/1. Further, the respondent has failed to prove the site plan which is an essential document in respect of suit for possession.
9. I have heard the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties. I have also carefully perused the entire relevant material placed in the file and in my considered opinion there is substance in the appeal as it is revealed from the perusal of the records that impugned judgment was passed in haste. In the judgment in question the observations made are contrary to each other with the facts of this case as on one hand it has been observed by the Ld. Trial Court that the appellant has failed to adduce any evidence in respect of additional issue framed regarding non maintainability of the suit under Section 4 & 5 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, on the other hand the court has not realized that the appellant had duly moved the application U/o 16 R 1 CPC and U/o 18 R 2 r.w. Sec.151 CPC for seeking permission for leading additional evidence to prove the additional issue but the court itself had dismissed the said application without affording any opportunity of hearing for the same on the ground that the additional issue was legal issue and no evidence is required for the same. Further the court has also not given due consideration to the memorandum of understanding dated 18.10.2002 Ex.PW1/D1 which falsified the alleged notice Ex.PW1/1. Site Plan was also not proved. It is also significant that an another application moved by appellant under order 18 R 17 CPC for adducing evidence on account of issue no.2 & 3 was also dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court without affording any opportunity of hearing and even the review application U/o 47 r.w. Sec. 114 & 115 CPC moved by the appellant on 18.07.2006 for review of order dated 13.07.2006 was also dismissed without affording any opportunity of hearing or even waiting for the reply by the respondent. Thus it is clear from the record that the Ld. Trial Court was in a hurry and the due opportunity was not given to the appellant for putting up his defence by way of adducing evidence/ additional evidence. The principle of natural justice demands that Justice should not only be done but it should also be seen to be done. In these facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.07.2006 can not be sustained and accordingly I hereby set aside the same and now remand back the case to the Ld. Trial Court with a direction to decide the issues a fresh by giving opportunity to the appellant of adducing the additional evidence to prove the additional issue as well as issue no.2 & 3 (for which the appellant felt aggrieved). The appellant shall be given only two opportunities to conclude its evidence before the Trial Court and Ld. Trial Court is requested to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within three months. Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Court on 21.02.2007.
10. TCR file alongwith the copy of judgment be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.
11. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR)
court today on 31.01.2006) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
DELHI