Delhi District Court
The Delhi Stock Exchange Association ... vs Sh. Swatantra Kumar (Since Deceased) & ... on 6 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQs)
RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCT No. 30382/2016
The Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. .....Appellant
Versus
Sh. Swatantra Kumar (since deceased) & Ors. .....Respondents
ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC Appellant has preferred present appeal against impugned judgment dated 07.09.2015 passed by Ld. Addl. Rent Controller/Central whereby the eviction petition filed by the appellant under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was dismissed.
2. Notice of the application for condonation of delay was issued to the respondents. Respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 are contesting the present appeal. Respondent nos. 4 to 10 have been served by way of publication, however, no one appeared on their behalf. Trial Court Record was summoned.
RCT No. 30382/16 The Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. v. Swatantra Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 43. I have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the record.
4. In the application for condonation of delay, it is submitted that impugned judgment was passed on 07.09.2015; counsel for the appellant applied for certified copy on 11.09.2015 and same was received on 14.09.2015. During pendency of the proceedings before Ld. ARC, the appellant company was de recognized by SEBI vide order dated 19.11.2014; appellant company was taking steps for surrendering its recognition; it was left with no income and as such its staff became surplus and to offload the surplus staff VRS scheme was launched; from September to October 2015 the appellant company was working with skeleton staff which was looking after entire affairs of appellant company; due to above circumstances the certified copy of the impugned judgment was traced in the last week of December 2015 from the papers of Law Officer who had availed VRS; thereafter the file was handed over to a new counsel Sh. Ankur Goel on 24.12.2015; the draft of the appeal was approved on 31.12.2015 and as such appeal was filed on 02.01.2016. There is a delay of 73 days in filing the present appeal which is neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to above mentioned circumstances.
5. A detailed reply to the application has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 wherein dismissal of the application RCT No. 30382/16 The Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. v. Swatantra Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 4 has been prayed for.
6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant during arguments has reiterated the above mentioned grounds of the application for condonation of delay. Reliance has been placed on a judgment in a case titled Delhi Development Authority v. Dalip Kumar 137 (2007) DLT 309 wherein it has been held that refusal to condone delay can result in meritorious matters being thrown out at very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. It has been further held that when the delay is condoned, highest that can happen is that cause would be decided on merits after hearing parties. There is no dispute as to this proposition of law.
7. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 that para 4 of the application speaks volume that counsel for the appellant company had informed the appellant about fate of the eviction petition and advised it to prefer an appeal; Delhi Stock Exchange closed about a year back when the eviction petition was decided and same person has filed the appeal who was earlier appearing. There is no plausible cause to condone the delay.
8. There is no dispute as to the fact that the appellant company was derecognized by the order of SEBI in November 2014, it had launched VRS for its surplus staff and most of the employees had availed VRS and the appellant company was left with thin number of employees who were looking after the entire business of RCT No. 30382/16 The Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. v. Swatantra Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 4 the appellant company. Though certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied and received on 14.09.2015, but the same was allegedly kept by the Law Officer of the appellant company who had availed VRS and the certified copy of the impugned judgment could be traced only in the winter vacation of 2015 and thereafter the appeal was drafted and filed on 02.01.2016. Thus, the delay occurred in filing of the present appeal. The circumstances have been sufficiently explained under which the delay occurred. Contesting respondents can be compensated by way of cost. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed, but subject to costs of Rs.3000/ to be shared by respondents no.1 to 3 equally. Delay in filing present appeal is accordingly condoned.
Announced in the open Court (TALWANT SINGH)
Dated: 6th January, 2018 District & Sessions Judge (HQs)
Rent Control Tribunal
Tis Hazari Courts : Delhi
RCT No. 30382/16 The Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. v. Swatantra Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 4