The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mrs Ilashree Nath Gupta vs Smt Kamla Gupta consisting of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that two challenges cannot be mounted against the same impugned order.
Facts
This appeal challenged the ld. ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi judgement in "Kamla Gupta v. Nirmala Nath@Gupta" and sought to set aside the eviction proceedings. By the challenged judgement, the ld. ARC denied the Petitioner's request to submit a new defense u/s 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("DRC Act").
Respondent filed an eviction petition against Petitioner's mother ("Original Tenant") in New Delhi, which sought Original Tenant's eviction. Eviction summonses were issued. The Original Tenant then asked to defend. After the Court granted leave to defend, the Original Tenant filed a written statement. Both parties presented evidence. In 2021, Original Tenant died. The Original Tenant's daughter was impleaded as the lawful heir. The newly impleaded legal heir then sought leave to defend u/s 14(1)(e) of the DRC, which was denied by the ARC.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that the petition was filed u/s 14(1)(D) of DRC Act, and the leave to defend was directed to be filed by the ld. ARC u/s 14(1)(d). However, the said provision does not exist in the DRC and the legal heir ought to be permitted to file the application seeking leave to defend u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.
Respondent: It was contended that the said impugned order had already been appealed against by the Petitioner.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that the Original Tenant defended herself in court and presented proof. The eviction hearing was set for 5 December 2022. So, this petition for certiorari was a blatant misuse of procedure. It noted that the petitioner challenged the impugned order before the Ld. ADJ. In said appeal, the stay-of-proceedings request was denied. It held that same order cannot be challenged twice.
Moreover, the Petitioner impleaded as LR to the Original Tenant tried to reopen the entire proceedings after conclusion of evidence by alleging a trifling matter and taking advantage of a typographical error in the eviction petition title. In such cases, certiorari cannot be issued.
Judgment
The Bench dismissed this writ petition with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the Respondent, within two weeks. It was made clear that the ld. ARC was to proceed with and expedite the final hearing of the eviction petition being RC ARC No.584/2017.
Case: Mrs Ilashree Nath Gupta vs Smt Kamla Gupta
Citation: W.P.(C) 16303/2022 & CM APPLs. 51015/2022, 51016/2022, 51017/2022
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Decided on: 28th November 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
