V.K. Aggarwal vs Sh. Vijay Kumar And Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4814 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 27.09.2011

+       CM(M) No. 657/2006

V.K. AGGARWAL                                   ........... Petitioner
                          Through:   Mr. Ajay Goswami and
                                     Mr. Diwakar Singh, Advocates.

                     Versus

SH. VIJAY KUMAR AND ORS.                        ..........Respondents
                   Through:          Mr. S.H. Nizami, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the ARCT dated

04.02.2006; the RCT had dismissed the application filed by the

tenant/petitioner under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act

(DRCA) read with Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure

(Code); this application had been dismissed as a subsequent

corollary to the dismissal of his application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act.

2. Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the

landlord-Vijay Kumar under Section 14 (1) (a) (b) and (h) of the

DRCA against the respondents, namely, Smt. Shanta Soni and Sh.

Tinu Soni (respondent Nos. 2 and 3); the contention of the

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was that they had, in fact, sub-tenanted

these premises to the petitioner i.e. to V.K. Aggarwal; decree of

eviction had been passed in favour of the landlord Vijay Kumar on

15.11.1999. The petitioner-V.K. Aggarwal who was in possession

of the suit premises was dispossessed on 15.10.2000. Contention

of the petitioner was that thereafter i.e. from the date of his

dispossession, he had made efforts to contact his counsel and he

was able to contact him but the necessary documents relating to

the title of the property could not be collected by him. His

contention is that he is an independent title holder in the suit

property and is not a sub-tenant of Vijay Kumar.

3. The premises in dispute are property No. 1863/2254, Ward

No. XV, Wazir Singh Street, Paharganj, New Delhi. The averments

made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed

before ARC have been perused. Primary ground is that the

collection of documents could not be effected in time as the

petitioner did not material particulars. The ARCT as also the RCT

had both correctly noted that no sufficient cause for was made for

condoning the delay in filing the present appeal under Section 25

of the DRCA i.e. after about 80 days from the date of

dispossession. The ARCT as also the RCT had noted that although

no special period of limitation has been prescribed under the

DRCA for filing an application under Section 25, yet guidelines

have to be taken from the Limitation Act which is the statute

governing all limitations and relying upon the Article 128 of

Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act a period of 30 days was held to

be the statutory period for assailing an order of dispossession

from the property. In the present case admittedly, the petitioner

had been dispossessed on 15.10.2000; he had filed the application

under Section 25 of the DRCA only on 05.01.2001. The courts

below had correctly noted that no sufficient cause has been made

for condonation of delay when admittedly petitioner was out of the

property on 15.10.2000, the period of 80 days in assailing that

order remained unexplained. Vehement contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner is that this is a fit case for remand.

4. This court is of the view that the order of the Trial Court

holding that no 'sufficient cause' has been made for condonation

of delay suffers from no infirmity; further even assuming that this

argument of the petitioner is taken into account and the matter is

remanded back, it would serve no purpose.

5. Record shows that the petitioner is claiming his title

through one Raj Kumar; his contention being that after a series of

purchases, Raj Kumar had finally sold this property to the

petitioner who is a purchaser from Raj Kumar. This is the gist of

his application under Section 25 of the DRCA and this fact finds

mention in para 11. To controvert this submission, learned

counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this court to the

orders of the Single Judge of the High Court passed on 11.12.2002

in Suit No. 1021/2011. Suit No. 1021/2001 was a suit filed by the

said Raj Kumar against Vijay Kumar for declaration and

possession. His contention was that the disputed premises are

owned by him; he had sought an injunction against the defendant

(Vijay Kumar) from selling or alienating the suit property during

the pendency of the suit. This suit was finally dismissed on

06.01.2004. No appeal has been filed against the said order. The

order dated 06.01.2004 has thus attained finality. The necessary

consequence is that the suit filed by Raj Kumar (person though

whom the present petitioner is claiming title) against Vijay Kumar

(present landlord in the present petition) has been dismissed. Raj

Kumar has not been able to establish any claim in the suit

property. The present petitioner i.e. V.K. Aggarwal is claiming his

title only through Raj Kumar; his contention being that he had

purchased the suit property from Raj Kumar. Since Raj Kumar

himself has not been able to establish or lay any claim or title to

the suit property, it is clear that even in the eventuality that the

matter is remanded back to the trial court no useful purpose will

be served as this defence now set up by the petitioner of having

purchased this property from Raj Kumar cannot be established.

6. Impugned order on no count suffers from any infirmity;

petition is without merit; it is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 rb