Delhi High Court
Smt. Pushpa Rani vs Smt. Sunita Rani on 24 January, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of judgment: 24.01.2012
+ CM(M) No. 312/2000. & CM No. 991/2000
SMT. PUSHPA RANI ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Gita Dhingra, Adv.
versus
SMT. SUNITA RANI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Puneet Taneja, Adv for R-1.
Mr. R.N. Oberoi, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
25.01.2000 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal which
has reversed the findings of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC)
dated 21.05.1999.
2 Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the
landlady Sunita Rani against her tenant Pushpa Rani under
Section 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). Prior to
filing of the eviction petition, a legal notice dated 18.09.1997 was
served upon the respondent. This legal notice made a reference of
two addresses of the tenant i.e. (i) Shop No. E-24, Chander Nagar,
Delhi and (ii) residential address No. 2484/3D, Park Marg, Street
No. 8, Rajgarh Extension, Delhi-110031.
3 Thereafter in the eviction petition, the address of the
respondent was shown only as the first address i.e. E-24, Chander
Nagar, Delhi. In the eviction petition, it has been contended that
the legal notice had been sent to the tenant at two addresses; i.e.
at the disputed premises as also his residential address but tenant
was thereafter served by affixation. The eviction petition has
however mentioned the address of the tenanted premises alone
which as per the contention of the landlord is the requirement of a
legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
4 Record discloses that the legal notice sent at his second
address had come back with the report that his address has since
changed. Service report of the tenant in the eviction petition (shop
No. E-24, Chander Nagar, Delhi) had come back with the remarks
that the premises are lying locked. In these circumstances, the
tenant was proceeded ex-parte. This ex-parte judgment dated
01.06.1998 was passed in favour of the landlord and against the
tenant. The possession of the premises was also taken over by the
landlord sometime in December, 1998. On 29.01.1999, an
application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟) had been filed by the tenant
seeking setting aside of ex-parte decree dated 01.06.1998.
Contention being that she was never served with the summons of
the eviction petition and she learnt about it only on 28.01.1999
when the bailiff had come to take possession; an application for
restitution had also been filed.
5 The ARC vide order dated 21.05.1999 accepted the
submissions made by the tenant; the ex-parte decree was set
aside. The ARC had noted that although the legal notice had been
sent at both the addresses i.e. residential address as also the shop
No. E-24, Chander Nagar, Delhi yet the eviction petition had not
disclosed the residential address which was a material
concealment; bonafides of the landlord were suspicious; the
petitioner appears to have played a fraud upon the tenant;
accordingly, the ex-parte decree was set aside and application for
restitution was allowed in favour of the tenant.
6 The impugned order i.e. ARCT had reversed this finding of
the ARC. The impugned order had inter-alia in para 15 noted as
follows:-
"I have carefully checked the record of the eviction petition. Indeed
envelopes are enclosed with it which showed that notice of demand could not
be served on Smt. Pushpa Rani at her residential address and therefore Smt.
Sunit was justified in not repeating this incorrect address in the eviction
petition at the time of issuing processes to Smt. Pushpa Rani. The finding of Ld.
ARC is not based on record or proper appreciation of the material. It is also
mentioned in the impugned order that Smt. Sunita filed petition for eviction
only against Smt. Pushpa Rani even though she knew that the original tenant
Shri Kishor Bhalla had left other heirs also, Smt. Pushpa invited the attention to
the copy of the first page of the plaint filed by her against husband of Smt.
Sunita namely Sh. Prem Kumar which showed that there were other heirs along
with her as plaintiffs in the said suit. The suit was for injunction. The contention
of Smt. Pushpa Rani was from this plaint but Sunita‟s husband to notice and
therefore, Sunita must have known that there was other heirs who have
inherited the tenancy and, therefore, notice of demand should have been given
and eviction petition should have been filed against all of them."
7 This is a fact finding arrived at by the ARCT after examining
the record himself; he had noted that the notice of demand sent to
Smt. Pushpa Rani at her residential address had come back with
the remarks that her address has since changed. In this view of
the matter, the eviction petition has mentioned only the shop
address of the tenant. Further contention of the petitioner that the
landlord was aware of this residential address of the tenant in
view of the fact that a suit had been filed by the tenant (suit for
injunction) of which summons had been served upon the legal
representatives of the defendant Prem Kumar on 03.11.1998
which had disclosed the complete address as also the names of
the legal representatives of the original tenant is a submission
which has been noted and a reasoned finding had been returned
which is to the effect that the eviction petition had been filed in
December, 1997; ex-parte decree had been obtained on
30.04.1998; the summons in the injunction suit were purportedly
served upon Prem Kumar on 03.11.1998 which would be seven
months after the date of the ex-parte decree and as such this
submission of the tenant was rightly noted by the ARCT to carry
no weight. These are fact findings which have been returned by
the RCT. This Court sitting in its power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and can interfere with the
findings only if there is a manifest injustice or an illegality which
has been committed by the court below. No such illegality has
been pointed out. Petition is without any merit.
8 Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
JANUARY 24, 2012
A
