Ram Chand Prithvi Chand vs Virender Kumar Mittal And Anr.
1993 Latest Caselaw 148 Del

JUDGMENT

P.K. Bahri, J.

(1) This is a petition challenging the order ofeviction passed by the Additional Controller dated 19/08/1992. I maymention that the leave to defend application of the petitioner was declined and the eviction order was passed on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2) One of the pleas raised in the leave to defend application was that respondent is not the owner of the flat in question. The respondent had produced Along with his affidavit a photocopy of the memorandum of partition allegedly supplied to him which showed that the flat in question had been allotted in ownership of R. K. Mittal whereas the respondent had filed original memorandum of partition Along with his petition seeking eviction showing that the flat in question, in fact, had been allotted to him in partition amongst four brothers.

(3) Originally, the property belonged to H. C. Mittal who died in1988, The respondent is also relying on some note of H. C. Mittal madein 1971 to show that H. C. Mittal wanted that the flat in question should,after his death, go to the share of the respondent.

(4) The short question which arises for decision is whether the plea raised by the petitioner in leave to defend application raised a friable issue or not or whether the said plea was a frivolous one which could not have been taken note of ?

(5) I am afraid the Additional Controller went wrong in examining the documents produced by the parties and giving a finding that the document produced by the petitioner is a forged one. It was a very serious finding to be given against any party which may even open the party to criminal prosecution. At any rate, once a plea has been raised in the leave to defend application supported by an affidavit and a photocopy of memorandum of partition that in fact the flat in question had come to the share of R. K. Mittal and another flat on the first floor had been given to the share of the respondent, then such a plea required to be looked into and leave to defend application ought to have been allowed by the Additional Controller and he should have decided the matter on evidence.

(6) I allow the civil revision and set aside the impugned order and grant the leave to defend to the petitioner but I direct the Additional Controller to decide this case positively within six months and if ultimately any finding on merits is given that the document produced by either party is forged, it would be a very fit case in the interest of justice for filing a criminal complaint against such a party forging such a document.

(7) Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Controller for further proceedings on 15/03/1992. Office to see that the file of the Trial Court reaches the Trial Court before that date.