Delhi High Court
Sunita Chauhan @ Gayatri Devi vs Virender Singh Gusain on 17 January, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 17.1.2014
+ CM(M) 41/2014
SUNITA CHAUHAN @ GAYATRI DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.N. Popli, Adv.
versus
VIRENDER SINGH GUSAIN ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
% MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (Open Court)
1. This petition impugns an order dated 20th November, 2013 which
rejected the petitioner's appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control
Act which in turn had assailed an order of 27.9.2013 in the context of rent
deposit petitions preferred earlier by the petitioner-tenant under Section 27
of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The tenant had impugned the order of the
Additional Rent Controller who dismissed her application under Order 9
Rule 9 CPC to be lacking in bonafides and also being barred by time.
2. The facts leading to the case are that the landlord had failed to receive
rent and upon his refusal to accept the same, three petitions were filed under
Section 27 of the DRC Act; one of which being DR No.426/2011 for the
rental period from 1.10.2011 to 31.12.2011 pertains to the present petition.
In the meanwhile, the landlord's petition under Section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act
was decided in his favour on 30.10.2010. Thereafter, on 8.5.2012, the
benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act was declined to the tenant presumably
on account of default in compliance of the order under Section 15(1) of the
Act. Upon challenge in appeal, this order was set aside and the case was
remanded for fresh consideration vide judgment dated 2.5.2013. In the
remanded proceedings, there was continuous default in appearance by the
tenant when her rent deposit petition came up for hearing on 3.8.2012,
7.12.2012 and 21.12.2012. Accordingly, it was dismissed on the last date of
the aforesaid dates. The Appellate Tribunal reasoned that the dismissal of
the rent deposit petitions was justified since the appellant had failed to show
any good cause for default in appearance nor had she moved any application
for condonation of delay; that the default was not properly explained and it
was incumbent upon the tenant to pursue her petition diligently; that at any
rate there was no explanation as to why the application under Order 9 Rule 9
CPC for restoration be allowed in the absence of any application seeking
condonation of delay.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts ought to be
liberal in condoning delays; that a pedantic and a hyper-technical view of the
matter ought not to be taken as it would defeat the valuable right of parties,
in many a case, and the expression "sufficient cause" should be interpreted
liberally. He further contends that in the present case where the petitioner
had already deposited the rent in Court, no prejudice would be caused to the
landlord if the petition was restored and then decided on its substantive
merits. He also contends that in the interest of justice, the application for
restoration ought to have been allowed, subject to payment of costs as there
was only a delay of 107 days which ought to have been condoned. He relied
upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Nagina Singh vs. Naga
Singh in support of his contentions.
4. The default in appearance is sought to be explained as a bonafide
mistake on the part of the counsel. However, it is not explained as to how
counsel came to know about the defaults and of the impugned order only on
26.4.2013. Admittedly, the restoration application was filed on 8.5.2013.
Therefore from the date of dismissal of the rent deposit petition on
21.12.2012, 137 days have passed. Each day of delay has to be explained.
On a query put to learned counsel, there is no explanation forthcoming with
respect to the reason for the default before the Additional Rent Controller on
3rd August, 7th December and 21st December, 2012. The conduct of the
petitioner/tenant betrays a lack of sincerity and seriousness in pursuing her
case. The delays are unexplained. The reasons for dismissal of his
application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC by the ARC as well as the petition
under Section 38 of the DRC Act are justified and the reasons mentioned in
both the orders are correct. The impugned order does not suffer from any
infirmity warranting the interference of this Court in its revisionary
jurisdiction. The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 17, 2014/ak
