Delhi District Court
Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh ... vs M/S Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date Of ... on 18 December, 2015
Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015
IN THE COURT OF PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT:
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (SOUTH):
COURT ROOM NO. 204, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
Miscellaneous File No.14/2012
Unique ID No.02406C0171252012
In the matter of:
Shri Dalbir Singh Dhillon (Prince Dhillon),
R/o M4 (Market),
Greater Kailash PartI,
New Delhi110048.
Also At:
A108, Sector30, Noida (UP).
.....Applicant
(Through Ms.Ashu Arora, Advocate)
Versus
M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd.,
Through Its Director Shri Neeraj Lamba,
S46, Greater Kailash PartI,
New Delhi110048.
.....Respondent
(Through Shri Sunil Malhtora, Advocate)
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 30.04.2012
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 19.09.2015
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.12.2015
Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 1 of 17
Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015
APPLICATION U/s 19(2) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 ON BEHALF OF
APPLICANT FOR SEEKING REENTRY IN PREMISES BEARING No.M4,
FIRST FLOOR, GREATER KAILASH, MBLOCK MARKET, NEW DELHI
18.12.2015
O R D E R:
This order shall dispose off an application filed in the Court on 30.04.2012, on behalf of applicant namely Shri Dalbir Singh Dhillon (Prince Dhillon), U/s 19 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "DRC Act"), interalia seeking reentry in premises bearing No.M4, First Floor, Greater Kailash, MBlock Market, New Delhi. Alongwith the aforesaid application, applicant Shri Dalbir Singh Dhillon has also filed another application U/s 5 of Limitation Act, thereby seeking condonation of delay in filing the application U/s 19(2) of the DRC Act.
2. Before taking up the application in question, it would be appropriate to have a brief synopsis of the grounds which led the applicant Shri Dalbir Singh Dhillon to file the instant application.
3. On 17.17.1997, the respondent herein, i.e M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd., filed an eviction petition being EP No.116/1997 against three respondents namely Smt.Satnam Kaur, Shri Karenbir Singh and Shri Dalbir Singh (the applicant herein), thereby invoking Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act against them qua two rooms alongwith kitchen, bathroom and open courtyard, situated on Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 2 of 17 Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015 the first floor of property bearing No.M4 (Market), Greater Kailash PartI, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted suit premises"). In response to the said petition, the respondent(s) filed detailed leave to defend application. Therafter, vide detailed order dated 17.01.2000, Ms.Ravinder Kaur (the then Ld.ARC, Delhi) dismissed the applications of respondents for seeking leave to contest the said eviction petition, thereby passing an eviction order in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents (including the applicant herein) qua the tenanted suit premises.
4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.ARC dated 17.01.2000, the respondents in the EP No.116/1997 preferred a revision petition bearing CRP No.431/2000 & CM No.14903/2008, titled as, "Smt.Satnam Kaur & Ors. V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Vide its judgment dated 19.03.2009, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the said revision petition being devoid of merits. Thereafter the aforesaid respondents in EP No.116/1997, preferred a SLP being SLP No.7464/2009, titled as, "Smt.Satnam Kaur & Ors. V/s M/s Ashlar Stones (P) Ltd." before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2010, passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 30.04.2010 passed in the aforesaid SLP was pleased to direct the petitioners (Smt.Satnam Kaur & Ors.) to hand over the possession of the tenanted suit premises to respondent, i.e M/s Ashlar Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 3 of 17 Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015 Stones (P) Ltd. on or before 30.04.2011 and pursuant to the said orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 30.04.2010, the possession of tenanted suit premises was handed over by the applicant herein to respondent herein on 30.04.2011.
5. Now, reverting back to the application in question. It has been submitted on behalf of applicant Shri Dalbir Singh Dhillon that he is seeking right of reentry in the tenanted suit premises by pressing into service the provisions of Section 19(2) of DRC Act as neither the respondent/landlord nor his beneficiary have entered/occupied the tenanted suit premises despite lapse of more than two months since the applicant/tenant having handed over the possession of tenanted suit premises to respondent/landlord on 30.04.2011. It has further been the case of applicant that about eleven months had elapsed since 30.04.2011, but even till 30.04.2012 (i.e the date of filing of application in question in the Court) neither the respondent/landlord nor his beneficiary has shifted/occupied the tenanted suit premises, which clearly goes on to show that the respondent had no bonafide requirement of the tenanted suit premises and the eviction petition was filed by it with a malafide intention and ulterior motive to evict the applicant.
6. It has further been submitted on behalf of applicant that since his eviction from the tenanted suit premises (i.e w.e.f 30.04.2011) he has been Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 4 of 17 Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015 residing with his mother at her mercy in the house/accommodation owned by her, as he/applicant could not get/arrange for a suitable accommodation within his means for himself and his family and thus he is in dire need to seek re entry in the tenanted suit premises.
7. It has been further averred by the applicant that earlier also on 08.04.2012 he had moved an application U/s 19(2) of DRC Act (being Application No.28/12), however, on account of some technical defects therein, same was withdrawn by him on 27.04.2012 with the liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action. It is a matter of record that the present application has been moved by applicant/tenant in the Court on 30.04.2012, whereas he had handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of tenanted suit premises to the respondent on 30.04.2011.
8. Section 4 of DRC Rules, 1959 contemplates that an application by the tenant under the aforesaid provision shall be made within six months from the date on which the cause of action for reentry arises. So, after handing over the possession of tenanted suit premises by the applicant/tenant to respondent/landlord on 30.04.2011, time till 30.06.2011 (i.e upto two months) was available with the respondent/landlord to shift therein. So, prima facie believing the averments of applicant/tenant, it is noticed that w.e.f 01.07.2011 the cause of action arose in favour of applicant and was available Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 5 of 17 Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015 with him till 30.12.2011 (six months' period). However, it is further a matter of record that the applicant Shri Dalbir Singh Dhillon has moved the instant application in Court only on 30.04.2012, i.e almost after delay of a period of four months w.e.f 30.12.2011. As such, alongwith the application in question the applicant/tenant has also moved an application U/s 5 of Limitation Act, thereby seeking condonation of delay in filing the application in question.
9. The applicant/tenant has taken two grounds in the application filed U/s 5 of Limitation Act. The first ground taken by him is that he is a patient of "vestibular neuronitis" and suffered an acute stroke of "vestibular neuronitis" on 29.12.2012 and was advised bed rest by the doctor till 06.02.2012 and secondly on 03.02.2012 his mother fell in the bathroom and sustained spinal injuries and was advised complete bed rest till 15.04.2012, as such he could not file the application in question with the time frame as prescribed U/s 19(2) of DRC Act.
10. It would be appropriate to first take up the application U/s 5 of Limitation Act, as the fate of same would decide whether the application filed by applicant/tenant U/s 19(2) of DRC Act is to be heard on merits or not. On 26.10.2012, the respondent/landlord filed reply to the application U/s 5 of Limitation Act, interalia taking the preliminary objections that the applicant has concocted the story qua his ailment as also the spinal injury being Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 6 of 17 Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015 suffered by his mother just to make good the delay and bring the application in question within the period of limitation. It has been further stated that the application in question is hopelessly barred by time and as such, is not maintainable and merits dismissal.
11. In order to substantiate his claim qua medical grounds, the applicant/tenant has filed copy of his medical advice issued by the doctor, which the respondent/landlord has termed to have been procured by the applicant.
12. It is further a matter of record that earlier on 08.04.2012, applicant/tenant had moved a similar application before the Court, which came to be withdrawn by him on 27.04.2012 on account of some technical defects, though with due permission of the Court, thereby granting him liberty to file fresh application on the same cause of action. Therefore, even roughly if we take the date of filing of application as 08.04.2012, then also there is delay of about 03 months and 08 days in invoking the provisions of Section 19(2) of DRC Act by the applicant.
13. Be that as it may, it is well known that law of limitation is founded on public policy and rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The idea underlying the Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 7 of 17 Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015 concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. At the same time, the Courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation (Reference case reported as, "(2012) 5 SCC 157", titled as, "Mani Ben Devraj Shah V/s Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai").
14. As discussed herein above, though it is a matter of record that there has been delay by the applicant in filing the application in question, but since I wish to dispose off the application in question on merits, so it would be in the interest of justice to condone the delay as not doing so would amount to destroying the rights of parties. Accordingly, the application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the applicant/tenant is hereby allowed and the delay in filing the application U/s 19(2) of DRC Act is hereby condoned.
15. Now, let us take the application in question head on. Ms.Ashu Arora, learned counsel for the applicant/tenant has very vehemently argued that neither the respondent/landlord nor his beneficiary has occupied the tenanted suit premises even after lapse of a period of more than two months since 30.04.2011, i.e the date when the vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted suit premises was handed over to the respondent/landlord in compliance of the order dated 30.04.2010 of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 8 of 17 Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015 continuation with the above, she has further argued that even as on 30.04.2012, i.e the date of filing of application in question in the Court, neither the the respondent/landlord nor his beneficiary had occupied the tenanted suit premises and same is gross violation of eviction order dated 17.01.2000, passed by the Ld.ARC visavis the said fact goes on to show that that the respondent never required the tenanted suit premises for the residence of its Director namely Shri A.K Jain and instead same was an evil design of the respondent to induct new tenant at exorbitant rent. She has further argued that since his eviction from the tenanted suit premises w.e.f 30.04.2011, the applicant/tenant had been forced to reside with his mother in the accommodation owned by her and now his family is in genuine need of the tenanted suit premises as till date, the applicant/tenant has not been able to get/arrange for a suitable accommodation in Delhi within his means.
16. On the other hand, Shri Sunil Malhotra, advocate, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord/nonapplicant has very vehemently argued that the application in question has been filed with a malafide and mischievous motive and thus is not maintainable. He has admitted that the tenanted suit premises was handed over to the respondent by the applicant/tenant on 30.04.2011. The arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord can be summed up as under: Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 9 of 17
Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015
(a) That the present application is nothing but a counter blast to an eviction petition filed by respondent U/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act against the applicant/tenant herein in respect of half portion of ground floor of property in question, i.e property bearing No.M4, Greater KailashI, MBlock, New Delhi;
(b) He has further argued that the premises at the first floor of property in question is in a very bad condition as the the same was built sometimes in the year 1960 and during the time when the same was in possession of applicant(s), they never took any step for repair of the same and now the same requires extensive repairs; all the electrical wiring requires immediate replacement; lots of mason work is required to be done; all the pipelines and plumbing are of 1960s and same have got corroded and presently are not in a functional state; the china ware (WC) and CP fittings (taps and washbasins etc.) are in a very bad shape and cannot be used for any purpose.
(c) He has further submitted that in the similar manner, most of the wooden work has been destroyed by white ants/completely eaten away by termites, so the entire wooden work including the door frames, doors, window frames, windows, wardrobe etc. has to be removed and replaced by new wooden work;
(d) He has further submitted that the internal as well as external plaster of the premises in question has fallen from a number of places, as a Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 10 of 17 Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015 result of which the premises is not useable and now the entire plaster has to be removed and to be redone;
(e) He has further argued that the first floor also requires lots of repairs as the plaster of same has also fallen from number of places and now the same has to be removed and plastered afresh alongwith POPpunnings.
(f) He has further argued that the respondent wants to carry out the aforesaid necessary repairs in the property to make it habitable according to the status/standard of its Director and when the respondent was in the process of carrying out the said repairs in the tenanted suit premises, applicant/tenant herein jumped the gun and filed a civil suit being CS No.194/2012 before the Ld.Civil Court and obtained an injunction order and thus the respondent was restrained from carrying out any further repairs, including the plumbing work. He has argued that on the one hand the applicant/tenant is blowing the trumpet of Section 19(2) DRC Act, whereas on the other hand he is not allowing the respondent to carry out the necessary repairs in the tenanted suit premises as he has obtained in an injunction order from the Ld.Civil Court and thus, the said two pleas raised by him are selfcontradictory and have been raised in a wrong and illegal way.
17. It is a matter of record that the applicant is also the tenant under the respondent qua a portion of ground floor of property in question and running his business therefrom and respondent having filed an eviction Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 11 of 17 Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015 petition U/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act against the applicant/tenant in respect of the same.
18. As far as the argument of learned counsel for the applicant/tenant that the respondent/landlord has misled the Court by obtaining the order of eviction dated 17.01.2000 (passed by the Ld.ARC) is concerned, I am afraid this argument is not available with the learned counsel for the applicant/ tenant as all such pleas of applicant have already been dealt with by the Ld.ARC in her order dated 17.01.2000 and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the applicant at this stage is barred from reagitating the same before this Court in an application filed U/s 19(2) of DRC Act. The said contention(s) of applicant/tenant is accordingly rejected.
19. As regards the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant qua nonavailability of suitable residential accommodation with the applicant and the applicant/tenant presently being putting up with his mother at the accommodation owned by her visavis the family of applicant being in genuine need of the tenanted suit premises and the counter reply thereto of the respondent/landlord in this regard are not being considered herein, as same are beyond the purview of Section 19(2) of DRC Act. In an application filed U/s 19(2) of DRC Act, this Court merely has to see whether the respondent/ landlord had shifted/occupied the tenanted suit premises or not and that too within two months of date of obtaining possession thereof from the Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 12 of 17 Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015 tenant/applicant and that is only the surefire way for the applicant to succeed in this application.
20. Now, let us see what the parties have brought on record to substantiate their respective contentions qua the application in question. Except for making oral averments in the application, the applicant/tenant has not filed any evidence, either documentary or any photographs to show that the respondent/landlord had not moved in the tenanted suit premises till 30.06.2011.
21. On the other hand, on 06.06.2015 the learned counsel for the respondent had filed certain documents on record which clinch the issue in the matter. The first document in this regard, which I would like to discuss is Quotation dated 05.05.2011, issued by one M/s Joginder Singh & Sons Construction Company. The said quotation is addressed to the Director of respondent company and is regarding repair/exterior work to be carried out at first and second floor of property in question. There is also a communication dated 06.07.2011 on letter head of said construction company which is addressed to the Director of respondent company. The most important document in this regard which the respondent has filed on record to show that he had moved in the tenanted suit premises within two months of 30.04.2011 is copy of an Invitation Card. A perusal of the copy of said invitation card Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 13 of 17 Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015 shows that the same is in respect of some "Soft House Warming Ceremony" (popularly known as "Grah Parvesh" in Hindi) organized on behalf of Shri Neeraj Lamba, Director of respondent company visavis its Board of Directors on the occasion of "Havan" which was organized on 03.06.2011 for the formal entrance/greh parvesh of its Chairman/Director (Shri A.K Jain) into the tenanted suit premises. The learned counsel for the respondent has further filed copy of one Retail Invoice/Cash Memo, dated 25.05.2011, issued by British India Press which is qua the publishing of aforesaid invitation cards by the said press. He has further filed copy of bill of "Food Junction Restaurant", dated 03.06.2011 which is issued in the name of respondent company and it appears that the same was towards the order placed on said restaurant for supply of lunch on the occasion of said "Soft House Warming Ceremony". Admittedly, the copies of said documents were filed on record by the respondent on 06.06.2015. It is a matter of record that after 06.06.2015, almost five dates have gone by in the matter, but till today the applicant/tenant has not filed any application thereby disputing/raising any objections to the copies of said documents. The invitation card qua the said "Soft House Warming Ceremony" shows that the Director of respondent had moved in the tenanted suit premises 03.06.2011, which is much prior to the time limit, i.e 30.06.2011, as prescribed under the provisions of 19(2) of DRC Act. It has no where been the case of applicant/tenant that the respondent has procured the said documents or the same are forged one.
Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 14 of 17 Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015
22. In addition to the above, on 09.03.2015, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord had also filed host of coloured photographs thereby trying to show the dilapidated condition of the property in question. The said coloured photographs duly covers the property in question from all the angles. From the perusal of the said photographs, it is evident even to the naked eye that the tenanted suit premises is in a dilapidated condition and requires extensive repair work. It is also a matter of record that a civil suit filed by the applicant/tenant herein against the respondent (bearing CS No.194/12) qua the ground floor of property in question is also going on between the parties before the Ld.Civil Court, where exparte interim injunction order has been passed against the respondent herein. So, I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent/landlord that the repairing/construction work in the tenanted suit premises has come down to a trickle on account of civil suit having been filed by the applicant/tenant against the respondent and it would be highly inconvenient for a person of the level of Director of a limited company to permanently reside in such a dilapidated building. Furthermore, the copies of Quotation dated 05.05.2011, issued by M/s Joginder Singh & Sons Construction Company show the bonafide of respondent that it wasted no time w.e.f 30.04.2011 (i.e the date when it got possession of tenanted suit premises) to approach a civil contractor for refurbishing/repair of the tenanted suit property for the residence of its Director.
Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 15 of 17 Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015
23. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the respondent had occupied the tenanted suit premises on 03.06.2011 which is apparent from the copy of "Invitation Card" qua "Soft House Warming Ceremony" placed on record by the respondent and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the respondent/landlord had been curiously lethargic on this account. The said invitation card has not been disputed on behalf of applicant/tenant so far, as no argument contrary to the same was put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant. Moresoever, it is settled position of law that landlord is not expected to reside in the premises in the condition in which it has come to his possession and he is well within his rights to get it suitably renovated.
24. So, from the material produced on record, I am of the opinion that applicant/tenant has miserably failed to prove that the respondent/landlord had not moved in the tenanted suit premises by 30.06.2011, i.e within a period of two months w.e.f 30.04.2011 (i.e the date when the vacant and physical possession of tenanted suit premises was handed over by the applicant/tenant to the respondent/landlord). Thus, the application U/s 19(2) of DRC Act being meritless accordingly stands dismissed.
25. No further orders are required to be passed in the matter. Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 16 of 17 Misc.No.14/2012: "Dalbir Singh Dhillon V/s M/s Ashlar Stones Pvt. Ltd." Date of Order: 18.12.2015
26. Last but not the least, it is hereby clarified that the order passed on this application shall have no ripple effect upon another eviction petition filed by respondent/landlord against the applicant herein U/s 14(1)(e) of DRC, in respect of a portion of ground floor of the property in question, which is stated to be pending before this Court only.
27. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Pawan Singh Rajawat)
on 18.12.2015 Administrative Civil Judgecum
Additional Rent Controllercum
Commercial Civil Judge: (South):
Saket District Courts: New Delhi
Application U/s 19 (2) of DRC Act, 1958: "Application Dismissed" Page 17 of 17