Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd. vs M/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd.
1998 Latest Caselaw 181 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the direction of the Rent Control Tribunal for personal presence of the petitioner's Managing Director, before taking up the appeal for admission.

2. Petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal against the order of eviction, passed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The memorandum of appeal and the application for stay was signed by Mr. Govind Deora, Company Secretary, who is also the Principal Officer and holds the Power of Attorney from the Company.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal came up for admission before the Rent Control Tribunal on 13.11.1997. The learned Tribunal declined to hear the appeal and directed the Managing Director to be present in person on 18.11.1997. On 18.11.1997 when the Counsel for the petitioner, alongwith Mr. Govind Deora, Company Secretary, was present and the Counsel requested for the appeal to be heard for admission. The Rent Control Tribunal adjourned the same to 8.12.1997 with the direction for the Managing Director of the petitioner to be present in person. The learned Rent Control Tribunal also directed that arguments for admission would also be heard on 8.12.1997.

4. Petitioner thereupon moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for modification of the directions dated 13.11.1997 and 18.11.1997. In the said application, which has been reported in this petition, petitioner submitted that Mr.Govind Deora was the attorney of the petitioner Company as also the Company's Secretary and was conversant with the fact of the case and in a position to answer all questions and queries. It was prayed that the Company Secretary of the petitioner Company be allowed to represent the petitioner on 8.12.1997 instead of the Managing Director. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said application was dismissed and the learned Rent Control Tribunal adjourned the appeal for hearing on admission to 7.1.1998, with the same direction of personal appearance of the Managing Director of the petitioner.

5. It is in this background of facts that petitioner has filed the present petition, which came up for admission on 7.1.1998. On 7.1.1998, notice was directed to be issued to the respondent and, in the meantime, the operation of the impugned order, requiring personal presence of Managing Director of the petitioner, was stayed.

6. On 11.2.1998, when the petition came up for hearing again, learned Counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the Rent Control Tribunal had adjourned the matter to 5.3.1998. Record was called for, which has since been received.

7. Service report on the respondent is awaited. Considering the fact that notice in the appeal itself has not been issue to the respondent, the presence of the respondent in this petition does not appear to be necessary for decision on the question that has arisen. Accordingly, service of the respondent is dispensed with.

8. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that appeal has been signed by the duly constituted attorney of the petitioner, who also happens to be the Company Secretary of the petitioner, and is fully conversant with the facts of the case. The Attorney-cum-Company Secretary has been present before the Rent Control Tribunal on all dates and both, the Counsel and the attorney, have been in a position to answer any such query that may be raised by the learned Rent Control Tribunal in relation to the appeal. In these circumstances, the direction requiring the personal presence of the Managing Director of the petitioner Company was wholly unwarranted. The learned Rent Control Tribunal has dismissed the application seeking modification of the said direction, without assigning any reason. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal did not raise any query for answering for which the presence of the Managing Director could be said to be required.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that it not as if the petitioner Company has been singled out. It is submitted that the learned Rent Control Tribunal is issuing directions for the presence of the Managing Director or the Chief Executive before taking up the appeals for admission in a routine manner.

10. A perusal of the orders passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal does not reveal that any query was raised which could not be answered by the Counsel for by the Attorney-cum-Company Secretary, who have been present on all the dates. Moreover, in this case it is the Company Secretary of the petitioner, who has signed the memorandum of appeal and sworn the affidavit in support of the stay application.

11. Reference in this connection may be made to Rule 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, which reads as under:

"19. Appearance before Tribunal.- A party may appear before the Rent Control Tribunal either in person or by a recognised agent provided that if the Rent Control Tribunal so directs the party shall appear in person......."

While the above rule, no doubt, provides that the party shall appear in person, if directed by the Rent Control Tribunal, such discretion has to be exercised judiciously. It is not to be exercised purely on the whims and caprice of the Presiding Officer. No doubt, if the facts and circumstances of the case are such or the nature of controversy or question arising are such which require some clarification, or queries to be answered by the party, then, certainly, the Rent Control Tribunal has the discretion to direct the presence of the party. However, it is not intended that as a matter of routine the presence of the appellant or the party is required prior to hearing of the appeal for admission.

12. In the instant case, commencing from 13.11.1997, the learned Rent Control Tribunal insisted on the presence of the Managing Director of the petitioner, despite the presence of the Counsel and the Company Secretary. The case has been repeatedly adjourned since the Managing Director of the petitioner could not be present in person. Non-hearing of an appeal in such circumstances would result in failure of justice.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find the direction of the learned Rent Control Tribunal, directing personal presence of the Managing Director of the petitioner before him, was wholly unwarranted and cannot be sustained. I, accordingly, quash the impugned directions.

14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his application for stay of dispossession has not been considered since the appeal has not been taken up for admission. Learned Rent Control Tribunal shall forthwith proceed to hear the appeal for admission and consider the application for stay on the next date of hearing fixed before him, i.e. 5.3.1998 itself, without requiring the presence of the Managing Director of the petitioner. Petitioner would, however ensure the presence of the Company Secretary before the learned Rent Control Tribunal to answer any query that may be raised.

15. The petition is allowed. A copy of the order be sent to the learned Rent Control Tribunal immediately. The record of the appeal be returned forthwith.