Delhi High Court
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement ... vs Randhir Singh & Anr on 25 April, 2013
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:25.04.2013
+ CM(M) 290/2011 & CM No.5243/2011 (Stay)
DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD ERSTWHILE
SLUM & JJ DEPT ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Adv.
versus
RANDHIR SINGH & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Anup Kumar Sinha, Adv. for
R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (erstwhile Slum and JJ
Department) is aggrieved by the three orders; i.e. the order dated
10.01.2011; order dated 09.08.2010 and also seeks a stay of the order
dated 04.03.2011. Relevant would it be at the outset to state that in none
of the orders, the petitioner was a party.
2. Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by
respondent No. 1/landlord (Randhir Singh) seeking eviction of his
CM (M) No. 290/2011 Page 1 of 6
tenant respondent No. 2/tenant (Smt. Lajwanti) under Section 14 (1)(a)
of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRCA) from the premise No. F-
574, Shakurpur, JJ Colony, Delhi. This property comprised of one room,
kitchen and verandah (tenanted premises).
3. This eviction petition had been decreed in favour of the landlord
on 07.08.2007.
4. The appeal filed by the tenant had been dismissed by the
Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) on 08.02.2008.
5. The tenant preferred a petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India which was dismissed by the High Court on
31.03.2008.
6. Execution proceedings were filed by the landlord.
7. Meanwhile, the tenant approached the Supreme Court in SLP
(Civil) No. 23820/2002. The same was dismissed on 13.10.2008. The
order of the Supreme Court reads herein as under:-
"UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
The petitioner is, however, granted time till 30th April, 2009, to vacate the premises
in question upon filing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today.
It is directed that in case the petitioner fails to vacate the premises in question
within the aforesaid time, it would be open to the concerned authority to take steps for
securing vacant possession of the premises in question. In case for delivery of possession
any armed force is necessary, the same shall be deputed by the concerned Deputy
Commissioner of Police within forty eight hours from the date requisition is received
therefore. It is also directed that in case anybody else, other than the petitioner, is found in
possession, he shall also be dispossessed from the premises in question."
8. It is on the basis of this order that this petition has been filed. The
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
"concerned authority" referred to in the order of the Supreme Court
makes a reference to the present petitioner; further submission being that
the tenant/Lajwanti had in fact handed over the suit premises to him but
in the course of the execution proceedings, the impugned order dated
04.03.2011 has issued warrants of possession qua this property against
the petitioner which order is now the subject matter of the present
petition.
9. The other orders impugned before this Court is the order dated
09.08.2010 and 10.01.2011 which were also passed in the course of the
execution proceedings.
10. It is in this background that the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner have to be appreciated.
11. Admittedly the petitioner was never a party in the proceeding
initiated by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2 under Section 14
(1)(a) of the DRCA in any forum i.e. either before the ARC or before
the ARCT. Even in the proceedings before the High Court he was never
a party. His submission is that he was represented in the Supreme Court.
What was his stand in the Supreme Court has not been explained.
Admittedly there was no written document qua the stand of the
petitioner before the Supreme Court. His submissions are only based on
oral pleas; oral plea being that he in fact is the authority in control over
the disputed land; he had allotted this land to one Brij Lal S/o Sh
Mahadev who in turn had allotted it to respondent No. 1 and respondent
No. 1 has no legal title to the said premises. He could not have let out
the premises. His whole submission is bordered on this oral plea which
did not find favour before any Court as he was never a party in any of
these courts.
12. This petition appears to be nothing but an abuse of the process of
the Court and that too, by a Government department. If the petitioner
has any claim over the disputed land, he could exercise his right through
an independent legal forum. At the inception of the arguments, learned
counsel for the petitioner had in fact been advised to take his appropriate
legal remedy but he has chosen to address his arguments at length.
13. Reliance upon 103 (2003) DLT 654 Wazirpur Bartan Nirmata
Sangh Vs. Union of India & Others and the directions contained in para
48 (1) do not in any manner help his case. In this case, the policy of the
Government regarding relocation of jhuggi dwellers had been quashed
and certain directions had been given to the Government. As already
pointed out, if the petitioner has any valid claim to the disputed land,
nothing prevents him from taking his independent legal remedy; he
however upon merits pressing the present petition in which he has no
locus standi.
14. Petition being an abuse of the process of the Court is dismissed
with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal
Service Committee.
15. Petition stands disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL 25, 2013
A
