Delhi High Court
Rathindra Prasad Lahiri And Anr vs Technology Co-Operative Group ... on 28 September, 2015
Author: Gita Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7186/2013
% Date of decision : 28th September, 2015
RATHINDRA PRASAD LAHIRI AND ANR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. Panigrahi, Adv.
versus
TECHNOLOGY CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOSING SOCIETY
LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Kr. Ghose, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
Judgment (Oral)
Gita Mittal, J
1. The petitioner assails an order dated 7th June, 2013 passed
by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal dismissing his Review Application
No. 12/2013.
2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are within a narrow
compass. It appears that certain charges were raised upon the petitioner
for his appropriation of a staircase leading to his flat. This staircase
appears to be off the main staircase and enables access to the flat of the
petitioner.
3. The respondent contends that the petitioner has not paid the
cost of this staircase to the society. In view of the non-payment of the
amount by the petitioner despite the appropriation of the staircase to his
exclusive use, the society made a claim under Section 70 of the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. Additionally, the society submits that
it had sought eviction of the petitioner from the flat in question on
account of non-payment of lawfully demanded dues.
4. The Deputy Registrar passed an order dated 4th June, 2012
appointing an Arbitrator and making reference of the society's claim to
arbitration. The petitioner sought a review thereof under Section 115 of
the DCS Act, 2003. The review was also rejected by the RCS by an
order dated 22nd November, 2012.
5. Still not satisfied, the petitioner assailed the mere reference of
the society's disputes by way of an appeal before the Delhi Cooperative
Tribunal which came to be dismissed by the order dated 26 th April,
2013. The matter did not end here. The petitioner now filed a review
of the order dated 26th April, 2013 before the Tribunal which came to be
rejected by the order dated 7th June, 2013. The petitioner has filed the
instant writ petition challenging the orders of the Tribunal dated 26 th
April, 2013 and 7th June, 2013.
6. Before us, Mr. A.K. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that all issues between the petitioner and the society
stand resolved by virtue of an order dated 1st August, 2002 passed in
Writ Petition No. 6937/1999. It is his contention that the final cost of
the flat including the cost of the staircase was examined by the court in
this writ petition which culminated in the said order of 1st August, 2002
deciding the matter "once for all". We however find that there is
nothing in the order which would suggest that the cost of the staircase
was placed before this court (in W.P.No.6937/1999) as part of the cost
of the flat and considered in the final outcome thereof. Furthermore,
there is no adjudication at all for the reason that the court notes that the
order resulted on account of "reconciliatory efforts" by the court.
Therefore, so far as the claim of the society for payment of the
cost of the staircase is concerned, there is no adjudication thereof.
7. Learned counsel for the society contends that all other
members of the society have paid the claimed charges for appropriation
of the property to exclusive use and control.
8. Be that as it may, an order merely referring a dispute raised by
the respondent certainly cannot be the subject matter of such a
challenge. It needs no elaboration that even a plea of accord and
satisfaction is required to be placed before the Arbitrator. Therefore,
reference of the dispute at the instance of the respondent cannot be
assailed.
9. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this writ petition
which is hereby dismissed.
10. We were inclined to impose costs on the petitioner given the
nature of the challenge made in the present case. More litigation has
been generated by the petitioner from his challenge to an order merely
referring the society's claim to the arbitrator. The petitioner could have
placed all his assertions in the arbitration, including his reliance on
proceedings in W.P.No. 6937/1999. However, learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that the petitioner is a senior citizen and costs may
not be imposed. For this reason, we are refraining from imposing costs
in this matter.
11. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator appointed by the
order dated 4th June, 2002 for directions on 29th October, 2015.
GITA MITTAL, J
I.S.MEHTA, J
SEPTEMBER 28, 2015
kr
