Delhi High Court
Harish Chander Sharma vs Birma Devi & Ors. on 11 May, 2009
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 8th May, 2009
Date of Order: May, 11 2009
+ RA 368/2008 in CRP 832/2002
% 11.05.2009
Harish Chander Sharma ...Petitioner
Through : Mr.SM Rama Chandra, Advocate
Versus
Birma Devi & Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. J.C. Mahindroo, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
RA 368/2008
1. This review application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section
25B(9) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) has been made by the
applicants/respondents seeking review of the order dated 10th September
2008 passed by this Court.
2. This Court vide the impugned order dated 10th September 2008 had
allowed the Civil Revision Petition being 832 of 2002 filed by the non
applicant (petitioner) Harish Chander Sharma and set aside the order of
learned Additional Rent Controller and passed an order of eviction against the
applicants. The Court gave three months' time to the applicants to vacate the
premises. In the instant review application, the petitioner has stated that the
RA 368/2008 in CRP 832/2002 Page 1 Of 3
petitioners were entitled to six months' time under Section 14(7) of DRC Act
while the Court had granted only three months' time. The other ground taken
is that the applicants in counter affidavit had raised a plea about the decision
of learned ARC in regard to the ownership of the suit property being wrong
and the Court had not considered the same.
3. The ownership of the premises has been decided by learned ARC after
going through the entire evidence led by the parties. The evidence has been
discussed in detail taking into consideration the contentions raised by the
applicants and the learned trial court came to conclusion that the landlord
has duly proved the will executed by Shri Mukund Dass in favour of Shyam
Dass @ Shayam Lal who was father of the non applicant in the year 1891 and
the fact that Shri Mukund Dass was grandfather of the non applicant is not
disputed.
4. It is contended by the applicants that Smt. Parvati Devi was the owner
of the premises. Smt. Parveti Devi was never produced in the Court nor Smt.
Parveti Devi at any point of time was shown to have collected rent from the
petitioner or had been in possession of the premises.
5. Counsel for the non applicants also placed on record the judgment
dated 26th May 1976 in Civil Revision No.300 of 1976 between one Nathu Ram
and HC Sharma and HC Sharma non applicant, was shown owner of the same
premises as per this petition and the ownership was never in dispute. The non
applicant has also placed on record a copy of another order showing that the
applicants was in the habit of filing frivolous applications just to prolong the
case.
RA 368/2008 in CRP 832/2002 Page 2 Of 3
6. I consider that the plea of applicants that the ownership of the
premises was not established is baseless. This Court while considering civil
revision had considered all aspects of the case. As far as granting of six
months' time is concerned, the order was passed on 10 th September 2008
and the six months period expired on 9th March 2009. Thus, this ground is not
now available to the petitioner. This Court had granted an interim injunction
while admitting the review application only on the ground that six months
time was not granted to the applicants. I find no force in this review
application. The application is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.
May 11, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd
RA 368/2008 in CRP 832/2002 Page 3 Of 3
