Delhi District Court
Sh. Govind Ram Sharma vs Delhi Pinjra Pole Society on 27 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQs)
RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT010095152017
RCT No. 59/2017
Sh. Govind Ram Sharma
S/o Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma
9271S, First Floor
Gaushala Kishan Ganj,
Double Phatak, Kishan Ganj
Delhi. .....Appellant
Versus
Delhi Pinjra Pole Society
Having its registered office at:
372, Khari Baoli,
Delhi110006. .....Respondent
Date of filing of Appeal : 03.07.2017
Date of reserving Order : 02.04.2018
Date of Order : 27.04.2018
ORDER ON APPEAL UNDER SECTION 38
OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
RCT No. 59/17 Govind Ram Sharma v. Delhi Pinjra Pole Society Page 1 of 7
Appellant has filed the present appeal against impugned order dated 30.05.2017 passed by Ld. ARC (Central) whereby application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment was dismissed.
2. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent. Trial Court Record was summoned.
3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the eviction petition has been filed under Section 22 of the DRC Act as the landlord claims to be a public institution; as per explanation to Section 22 of the DRC Act, a private trust is not covered; the petitioner is not an educational institute, library, hospital or a dispensary; as per its 91st Annual Report, the petitioner society admits it to be an industry, hence, it not a public institution; judgment of Ashok Kumar v. President, Shri Goshala, Sukhadia Circle, Sri Ganga Nagar & Anr. passed by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Writ Petition No. 3710/2005 is not applicable; vide amendment application only a judicial order passed by Ms. Sujata Kohli Ld. ADJ was sought to be placed on record apart from legal objection to be taken that society is an industry and not a charitable institution; hence, the amendment application of the appellant should have been allowed. Moreover an institution cannot be an industry for one RCT No. 59/17 Govind Ram Sharma v. Delhi Pinjra Pole Society Page 2 of 7 purpose and not an industry for other purposes.
5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that whether Section 22 of the DRC Act is applicable or not, it is to be argued at the time of final argument; in Annual Report, the reference is regarding coverage under labour laws and it does not amount to the fact that the society has become an industry; Goshala is running on the basis of donation; the facts of amendment sought were in the knowledge of the appellant even prior to the filing of WS; order of Ms. Sujata Kohli, Ld. ADJ was passed one year prior to filing of written statement in this case; as per amended CPC, no amendment is to be allowed after trial has started and in this matter it is at respondent's evidence stage and no due diligence has been pleaded or proved in this case to avail benefit of exceptions and reliance in this regard has been placed on J.Samuel & Ors. v. Gattu Mahesh & Ors. I (2012) CLT 186 (SC).
6. In the present case, eviction petition was filed on 31.01.2013. Written statement was filed on 12.08.2013; PW1 & PW2 were examined, crossexamined and discharged on 17.12.2015. PW3 was examined, crossexamined and discharged on 01.04.2016 and the petitioner evidence was also closed on the same day and the matter was notified for respondent's evidence. RW1 & RW2 were examined in chief on 30.09.2016 and matter was fixed for their cross examination and only thereafter, an application under Order VI Rule RCT No. 59/17 Govind Ram Sharma v. Delhi Pinjra Pole Society Page 3 of 7 17 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the tenant/appellant on 02.11.2016. In the application, the amendment sought was that it transpired that petitioner was an industry and section 22 of the DRC Act was not applicable; the petitioner did not hold any license or permission to use the premises for running Goshala in the urban area as held by the court of Ms. Sujata Kohli, Ld. ADJ and said judgment was binding on the petitioner. It is further averred that in the annual report, the petitioner society admits to be an industry. In reply to the said application it has been stated by the landlord that proposed amendments are not relevant as husband of the tenant had filed a civil suit against the petitioner (landlord) alleging therein that petitioner was running Goshala without having any license from the MCD; even order passed on 24.07.2012 by Ms. Sujata Kohli, Ld. ADJ was within knowledge of the tenant when written statement was filed on 12.08.2013 and even same counsel was representing the tenant in the Court of Ms. Sujata Kohli Ld. ADJ, who is representing the tenant in the eviction petition. Dismissal of the amendment application was prayed for.
7. Let us take the proposed grounds to be incorporated one by one. One ground is that in the 91 st Annual Report of the Society, there is an admission that the landlord society is an industry for granting benefits to workers. But contention of landlord society is that it is not an industry for any purposes as the society is being run RCT No. 59/17 Govind Ram Sharma v. Delhi Pinjra Pole Society Page 4 of 7 on donations and if any produce is sold, the proceeds are also utilized for furtherance of the objects of the society i.e. for running the Goshala. Reliance has been placed on judgment in the matter of Ashok Kumar v. President, Shri Goshala, Sukhadia Circle, Sri Ganga Nagar & Anr. (Supra) of Rajasthan High Court wherein it has been held that Goshala is not covered in the definition of industry. In my considered view, even if the charitable institution has been declared as an industry for the purpose of Industrial Disputes Act, it does not lose its character as a charitable institution because the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are made applicable only with a view to provide labour welfare measures to the employees employed in the said institution. It has no bearing on the aims and objects of the said Trust or Society. Arguments of Ld. Counsel for appellant that if an institution is declared an industry for one purpose, then it is to be considered as an industry for all purposes is without any basis. Thus, it was rightly held by Ld. ARC that the Goshala is not an industry.
8. As regards placing on record the judgment of Ms. Sujata Kohli, Ld. ADJ to prove that the petitioner did not have any license or permission to run Goshala in Delhi, it is to be noted that the said order was passed on 24.07.2012 whereas the written statement was filed in August 2013 i.e., after about one year. When this fact was in the knowledge of the appellant, she could have pleaded the same in his RCT No. 59/17 Govind Ram Sharma v. Delhi Pinjra Pole Society Page 5 of 7 written statement but he failed to do so for the reasons best known to him. After conclusion of the petitioner's evidence on 01.04.2016 and filing of affidavits in evidence on behalf of the respondent, it was only on 02.11.2016 when the amendment application was filed. Same is highly belated. Even otherwise, as per Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the court can take judicial notice of the said judgment.
9. Rule 17 of Order VI of the CPC is quoted herein under:
"[17. Amendment of pleadings.The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:
"Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.]"
10. In the present case, the trial has commenced; the petitioner's evidence was concluded and the matter was notified for respondent's evidence and it was only at that belated stage the amendment application was moved by appellant/tenant. Even the facts sought to be incorporated in the amendment application were in the knowledge of the tenant/appellant at the time of filing written statement, hence it is not the case here that in spite of due diligence RCT No. 59/17 Govind Ram Sharma v. Delhi Pinjra Pole Society Page 6 of 7 the appellant could not have incorporated the facts before commencement of the trial. Hence, there was no occasion to allow the amendment. Amendment application of the appellant was rightly dismissed by Ld. ARC. There is no merit in the appeal. Same is accordingly dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of the order.
Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by TALWANT TALWANT SINGH
SINGH Date: 2018.05.02
13:39:04 +0530
Announced in the open Court (TALWANT SINGH)
Dated: 27th April, 2018 District & Sessions Judge (HQs)
Rent Control Tribunal
Tis Hazari Courts : Delhi
RCT No. 59/17 Govind Ram Sharma v. Delhi Pinjra Pole Society Page 7 of 7