Sunil Puri And Ors. vs Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. ...
1987 Latest Caselaw 203 Del

JUDGMENT

Sunanda Bhandare, J.

(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 19th May 1986 whereby the Additional Rent Controller allowed the prayer of the respondent to lead evidence on its objection to the petition for recovery of possession in respect of premises bearing no. 12, Friends Colony, New Delhi let out to the respondent company under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act vide order dated 17th August 1977 for a limited period of 64 months.

(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Additional Rent Controller failed to appreciate that the objections filed by the respondent company were belated and an after-thought and the main purpose in filing its objection was only to delay the execution. It was further submitted that the court below also failed to consider the subsequent events and ought to have considered the application in the light of all the documents filed Along with the application for permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and also the application for recovery of possession. Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.R. Vohra v. India Export House Pvt. Ltd. and Another, 27 (1985) D.L.T. 211. It was submitted that it took three years for the trial court to pass the impugned order and even after that till today not a single witness of the respondent was examined though this Court had not granted stay of further proceedings. It was further submitted that the trial court ought to have rejected the objections as not maintainable at. such a late stage as the same had been filed only to defeat the object of Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The premises were given to the respondent company on rent for a period of 64 months which expired on 17-12-1982. Application for issuing warrants under Section 21 was filed in April 1983. The respondent company at the initial stage evaded service and even after the notice was served after a long lapse filed the objections. A very serious grievance was made by the learned counsel regarding the delay in disposal of the application for recovery of possession. Learned counsel submitted that time and again the case was being adjourned.

(3) A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent on the very maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that an appeal is provided under the Delhi Rent Control Act to the Rent Control Tribunal against every order affecting the rights of the parties and, therefore, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable.

(4) On merits, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioners did not disclose all the facts to the Additional Rent Controller when the order under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed on 17-8-1977 and there was total non-application of mind by the Additional Rent Controller when he passed that order. It was open to the respondent to allege that a fraud had been committed on the court by the petitioner and the respondent was entitled to lead the evidence to prove the same. On the question of delay, learned counsel submitted that the delay in disposing of the application for delivery of possession was not entirely because of the respondent. It was submitted that the respondent has no objection if the application is disposed of at an early date and the respondent will co-operate in all respects in ensuring that the application is disposed of within a specified period.

(5) Without going into the rival contentions of the parties on merits of the case or also on the question of maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in my view, the present dispute at this interlocutory stage can be resolved if the application pending before the Additional Rent Controller is directed to be disposed of within a short and specified period. Both the parties have no objection to this course, of course without prejudice to their rights to raise the contentions on merits at any subsequent stage, if so advised or so found necessary. In fact, learned counsel for the respondent very fairly stated that the respondent will restrict his evidence to the minimum and will examine only 11 witnesses to support its contentions in the objections filed by it and will produce its evidence except the official witnesses at its own responsibility. He further stated that once a date for examination of the official witness is fixed and summons are directed to be issued by the Additional Rent Controller, the respondent will serve the summons on official witnesses at its own responsibility by Dasty service. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners will not take more than 10 days to complete their evidence after the respondent closes its evidence.

(6) The Supreme Court in S.B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna, explained the sweep of Section 21 which carves out tenancies of a particular category for special treatment and has observed as follows :- "PARLIAMENT was presumably keen on maximising accommodation available for letting, Realizing the scarcity crisis. One source of such spare accommodation which is usually she is potentially vacant building or part thereof which the landlord is able to let out for a strictly limited period provided he has some credible assurance that when he needs he will get it back. If an officer is going on other assignment for a particular period, or the owner has official quarter so that he can let out if he is confident that on his retirement he will be able to re-occupy, such accommodation may add to the total lease-worthy houses. The problem is felt most for residential uses. But no one will part with possession because the lease will become a statutory tenant and, even if bona fide requirement is made out, the litigative tiers are so many and the law's delay so tantalising that no realist in his senses will trust the sweet promises of a tenant that he will return the building after the stipulated period. So the law has to make itself credit-worthy. The long distance between institution of recovery proceedings and actual dispossession runs often into a decade or more-a factor of despair which can be obviated only by a special procedure. Section 21 is the answer. The law seeks to persuade the owner of premises available for letting for a particular or limited period by giving him the special assurance that at the expiry of that period the appointed agency will place the landlord in vacant possession."

(7) In my view, the delay caused in disposal of the application filed by the petitioners in the present case is to say the least appalling. It has taken more than four years for the evidence to be recorded. Delay such as in the present case defeats the very purpose for which Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was enacted. As observed by the Supreme Court in J.R. Vohra's case (supra) competing claims of the landlord and tenant must be so harmonised that no injustice is caused to either of the side. It is the duty of the court to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court even if parties attempt to delay the proceedings.

(8) In this view of the matter. I think in the present case, interest of justice will be served if the very application for restoration of possession is disposed of on or before 20th July 1987. I am giving this longer period because of the ensuing vacations in the month of June and a few holidays in the month of April. I, therefore, direct that the parties will appear before the Additional Rent Controller on 30th March 1987 on which date the Additional Rent Controller will fix a fresh time table for recording the evidence of parties as per the directions given hereinbelow.

(9) The Additional Rent Controller is directed to ensure that respondent's evidence is concluded on or before 15th May 1987. The responsibility of producing the evidence other than the official witnesses will be entirely of the respondent and if any of these witnesses do not appear on a date fixed for that purpose, the case will not be adjourned on that ground. As regards official witnesses, the summons to these witnesses will be served by the respondent at its own responsibility by taking dusty summons. The petitioners will conclude their evidence on or before 28th May 1987. Thereafter, the Additional Rent Controller is directed to finally dispose of the application after hearing arguments and according to law on or before 20th July 1987. The Additional Rent Controller will strictly adhere to the above time table, if necessary by proceeding with day to day trial.

(10) The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.