K. Sunil vs Kishan Lal Matta
1997 Latest Caselaw 129 Del

JUDGMENT

Jaspal Singh, J.

(1) The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. He is a tenant under the respondent allegedly on a monthly rent of Rs. 700.00 per month. He is neither paying rent nor water and electricity charges and yet is enjoying the premises with arrears mounting to Rs. 39,304.00 . The landlord, on the other hand is stated to be a retired Government servant aged about 70 years with failing eye sight. Driven to the wall, he filed a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs. 39,304 .00 . In response to that the present petitioner filed an application for leave to appear and defend the suit. The learned Civil Judge granted him the permission subject to his furnishing a bond for the suit amount. The petitioner is not prepared to furnish even that. Hence this revision petition.

(2) The facts as narrated above paint a pathetic scene. The tenant wants to enjoy all the facilities - the premises, the supply of electricity and the flow of water and yet would not pay. He is not even prepared to furnish a bond. It appears, and this is not disputed even by the petitioner-tenant, that in the year 1994 a dispute led the parties to the Police Station. At the Police Station an agreement was entered into. Admittedly, it was in writing. It is also not disputed that by that agreement the petitioner-tenant admitted the agreed rate of rent to be Rs. 700.00 per month. He also admitted his liability to pay the arrears of rent with effect from March, 1993. Even that agreement has not been honoured.

(3) It is now the case of the petitioner, and this happens to be the first ground of attack in the revision, that he was coerced to enter into the above-noted agreement. The suit was filed in October, 1995 and the plea of coercion was taken for the first time in the application for leave filed some time in 1996. Thus for all those long years sphinx-like silence was maintained. All this despite the fact that the petitioner happens to be a practicing Advocate.

(4) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said agreement was not only the outcome of force and coercion but was also hit by Section 5 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as it had a clause that in case the petitioner-tenant vacated the premises the claim with regard to rent would be given up. He says that on this basis too the leave to defend ought to have been unconditional. I fail to' see as to how it hits Section 5 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In any case, what is material is that there was an agreement in writing in which an admission with regard to agreed rate of rent was made and also an admission that rent was due with effect from March, 1993 besides water and electricity charges.

(5) Besides the challenge to the agreement on the grounds noticed above, it is also argued that the claim with regard to the arrears of electricity charges is partially barred by limitation. Even if this plea is accepted, the amount as per the petitioner himself would come to only Rs. 1500.00 .

(6) The petitioner now says, and as the last ground, that the rent was never Rs. 700.00 per month. According to him it was only Rs. 125.00 per month. Barring this bald assertion there is nothing to even prima fade support the claim. Rather as noticed above the agreement entered into between the parties contains admittedly an admission that the rent was Rs. 700.00 per month.

(7) It is not that the learned Civil Judge has not granted leave to appear and defend. She has the only thing which seems to have irked the petitioner, if I may say so, is the condition attached. I am told that keeping in view the pleas dealt with above, permission ought to have been unconditional and in this connection my attention has been drawn to a judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Mechalec Engineers and Manufacturers v. M/s. Basic Equipments Corporation, which is clearly distinguishable on facts.

(8) Keeping in view what has been noticed by me above I see no illegality or infirmity or any material irregularity in the order. The jurisdiction has been exercised within the judicial norms. In such a situation no interference is called for excepting that I do reduce the amount of bond by Rs. 1,500.00 . I am doing so as it is claimed that arrears of electricity charges amounting to Rs. 1,200.00 and arrears of water charges amounting to Rs. 300.00 (making a total of Rs. 1,500.00 ) are barred by limitation. To that extent I do make a modifiction. Beyond that the petitioner deserves no relief. The bond be furnished within 15 days from today. This disposes of the revision petition. However, nothing said in the order shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.