Kanwar Deep Singh Sawhney & Ors vs Harish Chander & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 3720 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                   Date of Judgment:01.06.2012

+     CM(M) 700/2012

KANWAR DEEP SINGH SAWHNEY & ORS      ..... Petitioners
                 Through Mr. Amit Sharma,Adv.

                     versus

HARISH CHANDER & ORS                             ..... Respondents
                 Through             None.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 Impugned order is dated 04.05.2012; prayer sought by the

petitioner/tenant Kanwardeep Singh Sawhney seeking permission of the

Court to cross-examine RW-1 i.e. Jasmine Sawhney had been declined

and rightly so.

2 Record shows that the present eviction petition had been filed by

the landlord under Sections 14 (1)(d) and 14 (1)(h) of the Delhi Rent

Control Act (DRCA). The landlords are Harish Chander and Naresh

Saxena; there were initially two tenants namely Baljeet Singh and

Trilochan Singh. Trilochan Singh had died during the pendency of the

petition; his daughter namely Jasmine Sawhney (RW-1) was brought on

record. The defence of the petitioner was that the premises had been let

out for a residential-cum-commercial purpose and not for residential

purpose alone. In the course of the trial, RW-1 Jasmine Sawhney,

daught of late Trilochan Singh Sawhney (tenant) had been examined and

in her cross-examination she had stated that 'the tenanted premises was

only for residential purpose and he was residing on the tenanted

premises'; vehement submission is bordered upon this so called

admission made by RW-1 in her cross-examination; submission being

that the admission shows that the father of RW-1 is in collusion with the

plaintiff and he has himself admitted the case of the plaintiff; the

defence of the petitioner has been shattered; his defence was that the

premises had been let out for a residential-cum-commercial purpose but

RW-1 has admitted that this was for a residential purpose alone. In view

of this collusion between the plaintiff and RW-1 he be permitted to

cross-examine RW-1.

3 This contention was repelled both by the ARC as also by the

RCT.

4 Record shows that the statement of RW-1 was recorded on

04.02.2012 and she was discharged on the same day. Present application

was filed by the petitioner one month later seeking permission to cross-

examine RW-1. Both the courts below had rightly noted that merely

because certain informations had been elicited in the testimony of RW-1

which even otherwise (in terms of the cross-examination highlighted of

RW-1) does not appear to effect the defence of the petitioner, it would

not in any manner entitle the tenant/petitioner to cross-examine this

witness. The plaintiff has not able to persuade this Court to hold

otherwise. Petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. Dismissed

with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

INDERMEET KAUR, J JUNE 01, 2012 A