* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:01.06.2012
+ CM(M) 700/2012
KANWAR DEEP SINGH SAWHNEY & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Amit Sharma,Adv.
versus
HARISH CHANDER & ORS ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 Impugned order is dated 04.05.2012; prayer sought by the petitioner/tenant Kanwardeep Singh Sawhney seeking permission of the Court to cross-examine RW-1 i.e. Jasmine Sawhney had been declined and rightly so.
2 Record shows that the present eviction petition had been filed by the landlord under Sections 14 (1)(d) and 14 (1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). The landlords are Harish Chander and Naresh Saxena; there were initially two tenants namely Baljeet Singh and Trilochan Singh. Trilochan Singh had died during the pendency of the petition; his daughter namely Jasmine Sawhney (RW-1) was brought on CM (M) No.700/2012 Page 1 of 3 record. The defence of the petitioner was that the premises had been let out for a residential-cum-commercial purpose and not for residential purpose alone. In the course of the trial, RW-1 Jasmine Sawhney, daught of late Trilochan Singh Sawhney (tenant) had been examined and in her cross-examination she had stated that 'the tenanted premises was only for residential purpose and he was residing on the tenanted premises'; vehement submission is bordered upon this so called admission made by RW-1 in her cross-examination; submission being that the admission shows that the father of RW-1 is in collusion with the plaintiff and he has himself admitted the case of the plaintiff; the defence of the petitioner has been shattered; his defence was that the premises had been let out for a residential-cum-commercial purpose but RW-1 has admitted that this was for a residential purpose alone. In view of this collusion between the plaintiff and RW-1 he be permitted to cross-examine RW-1.
3 This contention was repelled both by the ARC as also by the RCT.
4 Record shows that the statement of RW-1 was recorded on 04.02.2012 and she was discharged on the same day. Present application CM (M) No.700/2012 Page 2 of 3 was filed by the petitioner one month later seeking permission to cross- examine RW-1. Both the courts below had rightly noted that merely because certain informations had been elicited in the testimony of RW-1 which even otherwise (in terms of the cross-examination highlighted of RW-1) does not appear to effect the defence of the petitioner, it would not in any manner entitle the tenant/petitioner to cross-examine this witness. The plaintiff has not able to persuade this Court to hold otherwise. Petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. Dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
INDERMEET KAUR, J JUNE 01, 2012 A CM (M) No.700/2012 Page 3 of 3