Shri Atul Kumar vs Shri Narinder Kumar
2014 Latest Caselaw 5342 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     CM(M) No. 955/2014 & CM No. 17589/2014(stay)

%                                                    29th October , 2014

SHRI ATUL KUMAR                                           ......Petitioner
                           Through:      Mr. Umesh Shukla, Adv.


                           VERSUS

SHRI NARINDER KUMAR                                         ...... Respondent
                 Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.             It is not unknown that tenants who contest eviction petitions

filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act'), use all tricks in the book and not in the book to keep on delaying the

disposal of the eviction petitions. The present petition under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India is one such petition and filed clearly in abuse of the

process of the law.


2.             The impugned order dated 6.9.2014 which is challenged by the

petitioner/tenant, and who is the respondent in the court below, dismissed an


CMM-955/2014                                                                    Page 1 of 3
 application filed by the petitioner/tenant to recall PW-1 for cross-

examination. The main eviction petition which is filed is for non-payment

of rent and for bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(a) & (e) of the Act.

3.             The impugned order notes that the cross-examination of PW-1

was already closed earlier vide order dated 6.9.2013, inasmuch as,

petitioner/tenant had taken repeated adjournments for cross-examining PW-1

but yet did not conclude the cross-examination, resulting in the order dated

6.9.2013 closing the right to cross-examine PW-1.              This order dated

6.9.2013 has not been challenged and hence has attained finality.


4.             Surely, once the order dated 6.9.2013 has become final, then

what cannot be done be directly also cannot be done indirectly ie if evidence

of PW-1 was closed then, subsequently, PW-1 again cannot be recalled in

the guise of seeking right to confront the PW-1 with documents. Also, there

is no reason why instead of confronting PW-1 with documents which are

now sought to be proved by the respondent, the same cannot simply be

proved by the petitioner/tenant in his own evidence.


5.             In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner/tenant intends

to keep on delaying and dragging the eviction petition which is filed against

him. I note that trial court has been miserly in imposing costs of Rs.1000/-
CMM-955/2014                                                                    Page 2 of 3
 only on the petitioner, and therefore considering the delaying tactics of the

petitioner, this petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- and payment

of which costs to the landlord(respondent herein) shall be a condition

precedent for the petitioner/tenant to continue with pursuing all his defences

in the court below.


               Copy of this order be sent to the trial court to ensure

compliance of the same.




OCTOBER 29, 2014                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib