Delhi High Court
Sh.Ram Kishore vs Smt.Angoori Devi on 3 February, 2015
Author: V.K.Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ R.S.A. No.47/2015
Decided on : 3rd February, 2015
SH.RAM KISHORE ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manish Batra, Advocate.
Versus
SMT.ANGOORI DEVI ...... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
CM No.1888/2015
1. Allowed subject to deficiency being rectified.
2. The application stands disposed of.
RSA No.47/2015
CM No.1886/2015 (Condonation of Delay of 267 days)
1. This is a regular second appeal filed against the order of the trial
court and the first appellate court dated 19.02.2014 & 23.04.2014
respectively.
2. There is a delay of 267 days in fling the instant appeal.
3. The explanation which has been furnished in the application is that
the appellant is aged around 67 years and suffering from old age
problems like memory loss etc. because of which he is having limited
mobility. It has been stated by him that on 01.05.2014, he had handed
over brief pertaining to the instant matter to his eldest son, namely
Mr.Sanjay Kumar and specifically instructed him to initiate further
prosecution and accordingly engage the services of some lawyer. It has
been stated on 15.05.2014, Mr.Sanjay Kumar got a few typed papers
signed from the appellant and told the appellant that the same pertained to
second appeal to be filed on 16.05.2014 before this court. It is further
stated that on 22.05.2014 an ugly feud erupted at the appellant's
household in view whereof his aforesaid son Mr.Sanjay Kumar in a
sudden and regrettable manner left the household along with his entire
belongings and purportedly shifted to some unknown place. It has been
stated after the said date, neither the appellant could contact his son nor
his son has done the same thing. It is stated that only on 13.01.2015 the
appellant's daughter namely Ms.Sushila Devi w/o Sh.Ram Parshad R/o
5464, Gali No.71, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi came to the
appellant and handed him over the entire brief pertaining to the instant
matter which had been delivered at her residence by some unknown
person on 12.01.2015. The application has been supported by the
affidavit of the appellant and Ms.Sushila Devi.
4. The reasons which are given by the appellant for delay do not
inspire any credence regarding its genuineness. Merely, because the
appellant was suffering from old age problems, he could not simply rely
on his son only to ensure that the appeal is filed. He should have taken
personal interest in the matter and pursued the same when he had
contested the proceedings for all these years before the trial court and the
first appellate court. The appellant has also not disclosed the status of the
son namely Mr.Sanjay Kumar as to whether he was employed or
unemployed, having children or not and reasons behind sudden eruption
of feud in the family. All these non disclosures of facts in the application
clearly show that this is only a concocted story set up by the appellant
only with a view to file the instant appeal for which the wisdom has
dawned on the appellant belatedly that in case the appeal is not filed, he
may have to vacate the premises in question. It is very unlikely that a
father would not know the place of employment or residence or the place
where is likely to shift. Further, no details have been given as to whether
the appellant made any efforts to locate the whereabouts of his son. More
curious and strange is the behavior of daughter of the appellant who states
that some unknown person had delivered the papers at her residence on
12.01.2015.
5. Prima facie, all the reasons cited by the appellant in seeking
condonation of delay of 267 days in filing the instant appeal do not seem
to be genuine one and they do not constitute sufficient cause so as to
condone the same.
6. Even if this aspect with regard of condonation of delay is ignored,
the fact of the matter remains that there is a concurrent finding returned
by the two courts below upholding the judgment and decree of possession
passed against the present appellant. The only point raised by the
appellant in the present appeal is that the suit for possession was not
maintainable as the rent of the premises was less than Rs,3,500/- and,
therefore, he was protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
7. This is a question of fact and not a question of law much less a
substantial question of law as to whether the suit for possession was
maintainable or an eviction petition was to be filed since the suit for
possession has already been decreed. Obviously, this point has been dealt
with by the two courts below and the said concurrent finding is binding
between the parties and does not raise any substantial question of law.
8. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the condonation of delay
application are dismissed.
CM No.1887/2015
1. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, no further directions are
called for on this application.
2. Dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
FEBRUARY 02, 2015
dm
