Delhi High Court
Smt. Draupadi Devi (Deceased ... vs Mr. Gulshan Kumar Anand on 26 November, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. REV.No.199/2014
% 26th November, 2014
SMT. DRAUPADI DEVI (DECEASED THROUGH LRs) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. R. Mehta, Advoctae.
Versus
MR. GULSHAN KUMAR ANAND ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. J.S. Bakshi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
Review Petition No.513/2014
1. The petitioner/tenant by this review petition seeks review of the
judgment dated 9.9.2014 by which the rent control revision petition was
dismissed.
2. The admitted position which emerges on record is that an SLP
was filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 9.9.2014 and the SLP
being SLP no.26848/2014 was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its
order dated 26.9.2014 by making the following observations:-
" Taken on board.
We find no merit in the special leave petition. It is dismissed
accordingly.
However, on a request of learned counsel for the petitioners, time
to vacate the premises is extended till 31st March, 2015 subject to
petitioners' filing a usual undertaking within a period of two weeks
from today and further subject to the petitioners paying a sum of
Rs.27,000/- per month by the 7th day of each month."
(underlining added)
3. A reading of the aforesaid order shows that there were two
aspects in the same. Firstly, the reason given is that there was no merit in
the special leave petition. Secondly, the petitioner as per his request for time
to vacate the suit premises was directed to file an undertaking and I am
informed that petitioner has filed the undertaking to take benefit of the time
to vacate the suit premises till 31.3.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs.
State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359 sought to argue that even after
dismissal of an SLP, a review petition can be filed. Reliance is also placed
by the petitioner upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Southern Railway Officers Assn. and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
AIR 2010 SC 1241 to argue that merely because an undertaking is given to
comply with the order cannot mean that an appeal cannot be filed against the
judgment.
5. I am forced to observe that there are certain litigants such as the
present petitioner/tenant who do not want to understand and give respect to
the principle of finality of judgments. Supreme Court in the case of
Gangadhara Palo Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer and Anr. (2011) 4
SCC 602 has said that the ratio of Kunhayammed & Ors. (supra) is that
there is no merger of the High Court judgment with the Supreme Court order
dismissing the SLP if the Supreme Court gives even a one line reasoning to
dismiss the SLP. I have already reproduced above the order of the Supreme
Court which specifically states that there was no merit in the SLP and
therefore reasoning has been given by the Supreme Court for dismissing of
the SLP. Clearly therefore the ratio of the judgment in the case of
Gangadhara Palo (supra) will apply and not the ratio of the Supreme Court
in the case of Kunhayammed & Ors. (supra).
6. Another reason to be noted against the petitioner is that
petitioner is abusing the process of the Court because the petitioner in terms
of the order of the Supreme Court on 26.9.2014 has indeed filed the
undertaking to take benefit of the time to vacate the tenanted premises and
which aspect is confirmed by counsels for both the parties before this Court.
Therefore, the petitioner has really accepted the finality of the order of the
Supreme Court and only took time to vacate the suit premises. In such a
case, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Gangadhara Palo (supra) there is no entitlement to file a review petition
and the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Southern
Railway Officers Assn. and Anr. (supra) as relied upon by the petitioner
cannot be applied.
7. I note that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Gangadhara Palo (supra) has been followed and clarified by the Supreme
Court in the judgment in the case of Vinod Kapoor Vs. State of Goa and
Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 378 which is relied upon by the respondent, and in
which judgment the Supreme Court holds that once an SLP is withdrawn
then a fresh SLP cannot be filed against the same judgment after a review
petition against the order of the High Court is dismissed by the High Court.
In fact Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kapoor (supra) observes that in
fact an SLP cannot be filed against the order of the High Court dismissing
the review petition.
8. It is high time that to a certain sections of litigants, a very
strong message is sent that object of access to legal process is not that
litigants are entitled to abuse the legal process. Once the matter has reached
finality by reaching the Supreme Court, it is not permissible for litigants
such as the petitioner to keep on approaching the Courts more so after the
petitioner has taken benefit of the order of dismissal of the SLP by the
Supreme Court by filing an undertaking and taking time to vacate the suit
premises.
9. In view of the above, the review petition being meritless and an
abuse of the process of the law is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-. Costs
shall be paid to the counsel for the respondent within a period of four weeks
from today failing which the order of payment of costs can be executed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
NOVEMBER 26, 2014
Ne
