Delhi High Court
Smt. Chandra Prabha Saraff vs Parvez Ahmed on 2 March, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 02.03.2012
+ CM(M) 257/2012 and CM No. 3870/2012
SMT CHANDRA PRABHA SARAFF ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sumit Gahlawat, Adv.
versus
PARVEZ AHMED ..... Respondent
Through None.
AND
CM(M) 258/2012 and CM No. 3871/2012
PRABHU SHANKER SARAFF ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sumit Gahlawat, Adv.
versus
SACHIN GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 09.01.2012;
the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XV-A of the Code of
Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been
dismissed.
2 Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff
for eviction, possession, recovery of rent, interest and damages. The
plaintiff along with her brother in law claims himself to be the absolute
owner and in possession of the disputed property i.e. property bearing
No. 32/1A and 32/2A, B Block, Gali No. 3, East Azad Nagar.
Contention is that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in terms of a
rent agreement dated 18.07.2009; he has not paid occupation charges; he
was encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff; suit was accordingly
filed.
3 The written statement had disputed the claim of the plaintiff; it
was denied that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit
property. The rent agreement was also vehemently denied.
4 In the course of the proceedings, present application was filed
under Order XV-A of the Code; contention was that the user charges are
not being paid by the defendant since 01.04.2010 and insptie of legal
notice, he has failed to deposit this amount; prayer for the said amounts
was made.
5. The averments made in the written statement were reiterated in
the reply to the aforenoted application; relationship of landlord-tenant
was denied; it was denied that the plaintiff is entitled to any relief as the
premise of an application under Order XV-A of the Code would be only
if there is an admitted relationship of landlord and tenant which was
disputed in this case.
6. The impugned order has noted the respective contentions of the
parties. The defence set up by the defendant that he is the tenant under
Shahid Babe vide a rent agreement dated 14.01.2009 was yet to be
adjudicated upon; the Court had noted that the case is yet at the
preliminary stage; issues are also not yet framed; contention of the
defendant that he was regular paying rent to Shahid Babe whom he had
recognized as his landlord has also been noted and the rent agreement
filed by the defendant dated 14.01.2009 purported to have been executed
between himself and Shahid Babe was also a part of the record. It was in
this scenario that the Court had deferred orders on this application as the
rate of rent as alleged by the plaintiff in terms of a rent agreement dated
18.07.2009 was yet a matter which had to be adjudicated upon. This
question was accordingly rightly left open. The impugned order in no
manner suffers from any infirmity.
7. Vehement submissions have been reiterated and repeated time
and again by the learned counsel for the petitioner; his case is that the
defence of the defendant under Order XV-A of the Code should have
been struck off as he is not paying the admitted rent; what is admitted
rent is yet to be adjudicated upon. The defence of the defendant is that
he had recognized Shahid Babe as his landlord and in fact was paying
rent to Shahid Babe in terms of a rent agreement dated 14.01.2009
executed between himself and Shahid Babe. These frivolous
submissions which have been repeated over and over again have
resulted in wastage of precious time of the Court. This petition is an
abuse of the process of the Court. It is dismissed with costs of `10,000/-
to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MARCH 02, 2012
a
