Delhi High Court
Deepak Arora & Ors. vs Bal Krishan Bhargava on 8 April, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: March 03, 2010
Date of Order: April 08, 2010
+ CM(M) 201/2010
% 08.04.2010
Deepak Arora & Ors. ...Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gupta & Ms. Laxmibai, Advocates
Versus
Bal Krishna Bhargava ...Respondent
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhargawa in person
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?
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has assailed an order dated 7th December 2009 of learned ARCT.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the
petitioner was let out the premises in question on 25 th June, 1984. The premises also
consisted of a mezzanine. According to respondent/ landlord, this wooden mezzanine
(duchati) was only on 25% of the area of the shop as permitted by municipal
byelaws. In January, 1994, the tenant demolished the wooden mezzanine/ loft and in
its place laid an inter-floor of RCC on 100% area of shop. On tenant/petitioner
making these substantial alterations in the premises, the landlord/ respondent
served a notice terminating the tenancy and also requested MCD to take action for
unauthorized construction. Since the tenant did not bring the premises to its original
shape nor MCD took action, the respondent/ landlord filed a writ petition being Writ
Petition 4408 of 1994. In this writ petition, this Court vide order dated 10 th March,
1997 directed MCD to initiate appropriate action. In pursuant to the order of this
Court, unauthorized construction was booked for demolition, however, instead of
CM(M) 201/2010 Deepak Arora & Ors. v. Bal Krishna Bhargava Page 1 Of 3
demolition, MCD officials punctured RCC inter-flooring and closed the file. The
landlord thereafter filed an eviction petition against the tenant in October, 1998 on
the ground of substantial changes having been made in the premises in dispute. This
eviction petition was allowed under Section 14(1)(j) of DRC Act by the learned ARC
vide order dated 8th December 2002. The petitioner was directed to dismantle and
remove 75% the mezzanine floor being beyond the portion let out and approved by
MCD and to bring the mezzanine floor to the original position measuring 16'5" X
30'3" inch within 30 days. The petitioner herein preferred an appeal against this
order on 24th January, 2003 being RCA 69 of 2003. However, the petitioner chose to
withdraw this appeal and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 29 th January,
2003. The petitioner then filed a review application on 29 th October, 2003. This
review application was also dismissed as withdrawn on 30 th October, 2008.
3. It is obvious that on withdrawal of appeal by the petitioner the order passed
by learned ARC under Section 14(1)(j) became final and binding. The petitioner,
however, did not dismantle the excess coverage of mezzanine floor nor brought it to
its original position. The petitioner made an application under Section 14 (10) of
DRC Act for permitting him to pay compensation to landlord for additions. This
application was also dismissed. The petitioner then made an application for recalling
order dated 30th October, 2003 whereby review was dismissed as withdrawn. This
application was allowed by learned ARC on 20 th February 2004. The respondent/
landlord challenged this order of learned ARC dated 20 th February 2004 by filing
CM(M) No.566 of 2004. This petition was allowed by this Court and the matter was
remanded back for reconsideration on 23 rd May, 2006. The petitioner was allowed
by learned ARC to move a fresh review application. The petitioner moved fresh
review application dated 15th February 2008 for recalling/ setting aside of order
dated 18th December 2002 before the learned Rent Controller. This review
application was dismissed by learned ARC on 6th July, 2009. Against this order, an
appeal was preferred by the petitioners before RCT on 6 th August, 2009 and the
learned RCT dismissed the appeal vide the impugned order.
CM(M) 201/2010 Deepak Arora & Ors. v. Bal Krishna Bhargava Page 2 Of 3
4. It is apparent from the entire history of litigation that the petitioner had no
intention to comply with the order of learned ARC dated 8 th December 2002 and had
been misusing legal process to his advantage. First he filed an appeal then withdrew
the appeal. Despite the order of learned ARC having become final, the petitioner did
not dismantle the mezzanine and instead, moved an application that he wanted to
pay compensation. He then moved review application which he withdrew. He again
preferred an application for recalling the dismissal order on review application.
Learned ARCT after observing the entire history of the case found that there was no
substance in the appeal filed by the petitioners and the review was rightly dismissed
and dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
5. It is settled law that under Article 227, this Court does not act as a Court of
appeal and has not to re-appreciate the facts. The order passed by learned ARC
under Section 14(1)(j) has become final in the year 2002. The only effort of the
petitioner seems to be to prolong his illegal actions by resorting to one or other
litigation and to see that additional mezzanine constructed by him is enjoyed by him
perpetually and to frustrate the order passed by learned ARC. In Buddikota
Subbarao vs. V.K. Parosaran AIR 1996 SC 2687, the Supreme Court held that no
litigant has unlimited right to draught the court time and public money in order to
get his affairs settled in the manner, he wishes. Access to justice cannot be allowed
to be misused as a license to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. The present
petition is hereby dismissed being a frivolous petition with costs. The costs are
quantified at Rs.50,000/-.
April 08, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd
CM(M) 201/2010 Deepak Arora & Ors. v. Bal Krishna Bhargava Page 3 Of 3
