Ramzani vs Anjuman Wakil E Quam Punjabian
2013 Latest Caselaw 1503 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      LPA 67/2013
       RAMZANI
                                                           ..... Appellant
                         Through:     Mr Mohd. Azam Ansari, Adv. with
                                      appellant in person
                         versus

     ANJUMAN WAKIL E QUAM PUNJABIAN               ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr Anand Singh, Adv.
     CORAM:
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
                       ORDER

% 02.04.2013 LPA 67/2013 & CM 1713/2013 (filing additional documents)

1. The respondent Society filed an application under Section 19 of the

Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 seeking permission to

initiate eviction of the appellant from the premises comprising one room,

common open courtyard and a lavatory on the first floor of the property

bearing number 928, Mohalla Kishen Ganj, Teliwara, Delhi, which falls in a

slum area. Notice of the aforesaid application was issued to the appellant

and served upon him. According to the learned counsel for the appellant,

notice was received by the son of the appellant. Since neither no one

appeared nor any reply on behalf of the appellant was filed before the

LPA 67/2013 page 1 of 6

Competent Authority, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 13.10.2009. Vide an ex parte final order dated 21.5.2010, the application

filed by the respondent under Section 19 of the aforesaid Act was allowed

thereby granting permission to the respondent to initiate eviction

proceedings against the appellant.

2. The appellant filed W.P(C) No.791/2012 challenging the order dated

21.5.2010 passed by the Competent Authority. The aforesaid writ petition,

however, was withdrawn by the appellant on 8.2.2012 since he wanted to

pursue such other remedy as would be available to him. After withdrawing

the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant filed an application seeking setting

aside of the ex parte order dated 13.10.2009 and ex parte order dated

21.5.2010. The Competent Authority vide order dated 25.10.2012 dismissed

the aforesaid application. The order passed by the Competent Authority was

challenged by the appellant by way of W.P(C) No.15/2013. The learned

Single Judge vide the impugned order dated 4.1.2013 dismissed the writ

petition. Being aggrieved, the appellant/ writ petitioner is before us by way

of this appeal.

3. A perusal of the order passed by the Competent Authority on

LPA 67/2013 page 2 of 6

25.10.2012 would show that the appellant had actually appeared before the Competent Authority on 6.3.2009 and had taken time to file written

statement. Thereafter, neither did he appear nor was any written statement

filed by him. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, states that the

appellant had noted the date before the Competent Authority to be 30.5.2009

and when he came to the Court of the Competent Authority on that date, he

came to know that the actual date of hearing in the matter was 13.5.2009 and

not 30.5.2009. Be that as it may, the fact remains that neither did the

appellant appear before the Competent Authority nor did he file any written

statement at any time prior to 13.9.2009, when he was proceeded ex parte.

Even if he had noted the date as 30.5.2009, he ought to have filed his written

statement and appeared before the Competent Authority on the very next

date of hearing. There is absolutely no explanation from the appellant for not

appearing before the Competent Authority and not filing any reply/ written

statement. We have questioned the appellant who is present in person in the

Court in this regard, but he is unable to explain the default except saying that

he is a poor man who is now aged about 81 years. The learned counsel for

the respondent submits that it is not as if the appellant was stranger to the

LPA 67/2013 page 3 of 6

Court proceedings and the need to engage a counsel and file a reply, when he received notice from the Competent Authority and appeared in response

to the said notice. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, there

were litigations between the parties even before the notice in the application

under Section 19 of the Slum Area Act was issued to the appellant. This

statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent is not disputed by

the appellant. In these circumstances, we find absolutely no justification for

the appellant not appearing before the Competent Authority and not filing

the written statement/ reply on or before 13.9.2009.

4. Though the appellant was proceeded ex parte on 13.9.2009, the

Competent Authority granted requisite permission only vide judgment/ order

21.5.2010 i.e. after more than 8 months of the appellant being proceeded ex

parte. There is no explanation from the appellant as to why he did not seek

setting aside of the ex parte order dated 13.9.2009 at any time till the final

order came to be passed by the Competent Authority on 21.5.2010. This is

yet another circumstance which goes against the appellant.

5. The order passed by the Competent Authority on 21.5.2012 came to

be challenged only by way of a writ petition filed in the year 2012. The

LPA 67/2013 page 4 of 6 learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not aware of

the permission granted by the Competent Authority till he received a copy of

the eviction petition filed by the respondent against him. When we asked the

learned counsel for the appellant as to when he had received the copy of the

eviction petition, he stated that it was received towards end of the year 2010.

There is no worthwhile explanation from the appellant as to why even on

receipt of notice of the eviction petition he did not question the order of the

Competent Authority by way of a writ petition. The writ petition having

been filed in the year 2012, there was a time lag of more than a year between

receipt of the notice of the eviction petition and the filing of the writ

petition.

6. In these circumstances, when there is no explanation from the

appellant for not filing any written statement/ reply despite receipt of notice

from the Competent Authority, not appearing before the Competent

Authority at any time prior to 13.9.2009 when he was proceeded ex parte,

for not seeking setting aside of the ex parte order dated 13.9.2009 before the

final order came to be passed by the Competent Authority on 21.5.2010, and

LPA 67/2013 page 5 of 6

for not filing the writ petition immediately after receipt of notice of the eviction petition, it appear to us that the appellant was deliberately delaying

the matter so as to prolong the litigation initiated by the respondent and his

absence before the Competent Authority was not bonafide. We, therefore,

find no reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

The appeal is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

V.K. JAIN, J APRIL 02, 2013 rd