* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 02.03.2012
+ CM(M) 257/2012 and CM No. 3870/2012
SMT CHANDRA PRABHA SARAFF ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sumit Gahlawat, Adv.
versus
PARVEZ AHMED ..... Respondent
Through None.
AND
CM(M) 258/2012 and CM No. 3871/2012
PRABHU SHANKER SARAFF ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sumit Gahlawat, Adv.
versus
SACHIN GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 09.01.2012; the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been CM(M) Nos.257-258/2012 Page 1 of 4 dismissed.
2 Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for eviction, possession, recovery of rent, interest and damages. The plaintiff along with her brother in law claims himself to be the absolute owner and in possession of the disputed property i.e. property bearing No. 32/1A and 32/2A, B Block, Gali No. 3, East Azad Nagar. Contention is that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in terms of a rent agreement dated 18.07.2009; he has not paid occupation charges; he was encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff; suit was accordingly filed.
3 The written statement had disputed the claim of the plaintiff; it was denied that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit property. The rent agreement was also vehemently denied. 4 In the course of the proceedings, present application was filed under Order XV-A of the Code; contention was that the user charges are not being paid by the defendant since 01.04.2010 and insptie of legal notice, he has failed to deposit this amount; prayer for the said amounts was made.
5. The averments made in the written statement were reiterated in CM(M) Nos.257-258/2012 Page 2 of 4 the reply to the aforenoted application; relationship of landlord-tenant was denied; it was denied that the plaintiff is entitled to any relief as the premise of an application under Order XV-A of the Code would be only if there is an admitted relationship of landlord and tenant which was disputed in this case.
6. The impugned order has noted the respective contentions of the parties. The defence set up by the defendant that he is the tenant under Shahid Babe vide a rent agreement dated 14.01.2009 was yet to be adjudicated upon; the Court had noted that the case is yet at the preliminary stage; issues are also not yet framed; contention of the defendant that he was regular paying rent to Shahid Babe whom he had recognized as his landlord has also been noted and the rent agreement filed by the defendant dated 14.01.2009 purported to have been executed between himself and Shahid Babe was also a part of the record. It was in this scenario that the Court had deferred orders on this application as the rate of rent as alleged by the plaintiff in terms of a rent agreement dated 18.07.2009 was yet a matter which had to be adjudicated upon. This question was accordingly rightly left open. The impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity.
CM(M) Nos.257-258/2012 Page 3 of 4
7. Vehement submissions have been reiterated and repeated time and again by the learned counsel for the petitioner; his case is that the defence of the defendant under Order XV-A of the Code should have been struck off as he is not paying the admitted rent; what is admitted rent is yet to be adjudicated upon. The defence of the defendant is that he had recognized Shahid Babe as his landlord and in fact was paying rent to Shahid Babe in terms of a rent agreement dated 14.01.2009 executed between himself and Shahid Babe. These frivolous submissions which have been repeated over and over again have resulted in wastage of precious time of the Court. This petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. It is dismissed with costs of `10,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 02, 2012 a CM(M) Nos.257-258/2012 Page 4 of 4