Delhi High Court
M/S. Modern Laminators Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Hanuman Hosiery Mills on 11 July, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 644/2014
% 11th July , 2014
M/S. MODERN LAMINATORS PVT. LTD. ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Jain, Advocate.
VERSUS
M/S. HANUMAN HOSIERY MILLS ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M.No.10877/2014 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
+C.M. (M) No.644/2014 and C.M. No.10878/2014 (stay)
2. Tenants who contest the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by
owner/landlord with respect to premises which are outside the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 use every tactic in the book and not in the book, to delay
C.M.(M) No.644/2014 Page 1 of 4
and drag the suit for possession. This present petition is one such tactic
adopted by the tenant.
3. The challenge is to an order by which the court below has
disposed of an application of petitioner/defendant for framing additional
issues by observing that whatever aspects or issues which the
petitioner/defendant/tenant is seeking to get framed under Order 14 Rule 5
of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), are already covered under the
issues framed. Therefore really there remained no grievance of the
petitioner. In any case, clarification given by the court below in the
impugned order was only as a matter of abundant caution because in every
suit for possession filed by an owner/landlord for recovery of possession,
with respect to premises outside the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), three aspects are required to be proved.
First aspect is of the plaintiff being the owner/landlord, second of the
premises being outside the operation of the Act and thirdly that the tenancy
has been terminated. The issues already framed cover these aspects.
Therefore, not only the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC need not
have been filed by the petitioner/defendant, in any case the clarification
given at internal page 4 of the impugned order that whatever defences which
C.M.(M) No.644/2014 Page 2 of 4
the petitioner/defendant wanted to urge are already included in the existing
issues, shows that no grievance remained of the petitioner/defendant, yet, the
petition for understandable reasons is not satisfied.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant next contended that
the court below by the impugned order has restricted evidence of the
petitioner to be not of more than three witnesses, however, this submission is
a perverted reading of the impugned order because the impugned order only
states that fees of the Local Commissioner is upto Rs.15,000/- for maximum
of three witnesses i.e if there are more than three witnesses, fees of the Local
Commissioner will be more. That is all. No order is thus passed that
petitioner can lead evidence of only these witnesses.
5. I may state that CPC was amended in the year 2002 whereby in
order to expedite the trial, courts under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC were entitled
to appoint Local Commissioner to record the evidence. This case was a fit
case where the Local Commissioner was directed to record evidence, in
order to expedite the decision in the case.
6. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues before this Court that
Courts have no power to compensate the Local Commissioner for recording
of evidence because this is not provided under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. It is
C.M.(M) No.644/2014 Page 3 of 4
also argued that there is no other provision in the CPC to give compensation
to Local Commissioner to record evidence. (ii) In my opinion, I have yet to
hear a more frivolous argument than the argument which is urged, and this
argument being totally misconceived is rejected.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is a misconceived
petition and an abuse of the process of law and is hence dismissed with costs
of Rs.50,000/- which shall be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee within four weeks from today. Deposit of costs shall be
a condition precedent to the petitioner pursuing his defence before the trial
Court. I wish I could have imposed more costs to send a strict message
against filing of frivolous petitions, but, I cannot do so because the
respondent is not appearing. It is however high time that message be sent
out to the litigating public that judicial process is meant to be used and not
abused.
JULY 11, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
