Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajdhani Pagdi Kirayedar Sangathan ... vs High Court Of Delhi on 8 July, 2021
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10779/2020 & CM. APPL. 33823/2020
RAJDHANI PAGDI KIRAYEDAR SANGATHAN REGD.
..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rushab Aggarwal, Tejasvi
Chaudhary, Aayushi Jain and Japnish
Singh Bhatia, advs.
versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 08.07.2021
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Unit Criteria fixed by this Court on the administrative side with regard to the Units to be awarded to the Additional/Senior/Civil Judges and Tribunals upon their deciding eviction cases under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner has placed on record Annexure-P1, being the said Unit Criteria. The relevant entries referred to by the petitioner are the following:
B. Judgments S No. Item Units IV In all above categories judgment on 3 units per admission/rejection of plaint/ rejection of plaint/ cases for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:13.07.2021 23:10:06 refusal to grant leave to defend. part decree
(a) In all above categories judgment on admission/ 4 units rejection of plaint/ refusal to grant leave to defend (for part decree more than 5 years old) In all above categories judgment on admission/ 4 units
(b) rejection of plaint/ refusal to grant leave to defend (for final decree)
(c) In all above categories judgment on admission/ 5 units rejection of plaint/ refusal to grant leave to defend (for case more than 5 years old) C. MISCELLANEOUS WORK/ APPLICATIONS/ EXECUTION
1. Ex.-parte injunction/ Interim Order under DRC act ½ unit
2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which forms part of Chapter IIIA, deals with 'Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement' and is thus applicable to petitions instituted by landlords on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, or under sections 14A/14B/14C or 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Learned Counsel further submits that the tenant has to apply for leave to defend such eviction proceedings, and cannot defend the same as a matter of right. Only if leave is granted by the Court, the tenant gets the right to file a written statement and defend the eviction proceedings. In terms of Section 25B(4), the tenant is required to file an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction, and obtains leave from the Controller, failing which the tenant is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:13.07.2021 23:10:06 not allowed to contest the prayer for eviction from the rented premises.
Hence it is the case of the Petitioner that in terms of the Unit criteria, as laid down by the Court, a Judicial Officer is awarded 4 Units for dismissing a Leave to Contest application (which is more than 5 years old), whereas only 0.5 Units for allowing a Leave to Contest application. Hence the Judicial Officer personally benefits from dismissing the Leave to Defend application.
3. Mr. Aneja, who appears for the respondent on advance notice submits that the number of Units awarded for refusal of grant of Leave to Defend is 3 Units per case for part decree, and it is 4 Units only if the case is more than 5 years old. To this, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under entry IV(b), the number of Units awarded on refusal of grant of Leave to Defend, which leads to a final decree, is 4 Units and in a case of eviction where Leave to Defend is refused, it is a full decree of eviction which follows.
4. We have heard submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and we do not find any merit in the same. The difference in the number of units awarded to a learned Judicial Officer - while deciding an application to seek Leave to Defend in an Eviction Proceeding, is for good reasons. The grant of an application seeking Leave to defend is not a final decree/ judgment as the Judicial Officer while granting the Leave to Defend only comes to the conclusion that the tenant has raised "triable issues", while the lis between the landlord and the tenant continues and there is no final adjudication. Those triable issues are not determined - one way or another at the stage of grant of leave to defend. On the other hand, on refusal of grant of Leave to Defend to the tenant, the judicial officer has to consider all the relevant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:13.07.2021 23:10:06 facts; the submissions of the parties; particularly the submission of the tenant that triable issues arise; the counter submission of the landlord that no triable issue arises; accept the submission that no triable issue arises - in which process, the judicial officer is expected to give his reasoning for his decision on the submissions advanced after considering the case law cited before him. Upon refusal of leave to defend, the decree of eviction automatically follows and hence is in nature of a Final Decree as it brings to end that lis between landlord and tenant. Hence, in refusal of grant of Leave to Defend to the tenant, there is final determination of the rights of the landlord and tenant, while it is not so in the case of allowing of Leave to Defend application. The effort and time invested by the judicial officer in declining leave to defend is far greater than the effort and time required to pass an order granting leave to defend. Thus, there is complete justification for the Unit Criteria adopted by the High Court.
5. We also do not find merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Learned Judicial Officer dealing with the case can get influenced by the Unit Criteria while deciding the case. The mind of the Judicial Officer is disciplined and trained to decide the case on its own merits, and such like considerations do not go into his decision-making process which is decided purely on merits. We are therefore, of the view that there is no basis for the petitioner to claim that the different Unit criteria above referred to, by itself, could be a reason to affect the mind of the Judicial officer deciding an application seeking Leave to Defend in an Eviction Proceedings. For the above-mentioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:13.07.2021 23:10:066. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J JULY 8, 2021/dm Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT ARORA Signing Date:13.07.2021 23:10:06