Delhi High Court
Ran Singh vs Lilu Ram (Deceased) Thr Lrs. on 17 January, 2018
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th January, 2018
+ RC.REV. 204/2016 and CM APPL.25555/2016
RAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.P.Sengh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Lalit Choudhary,
Ms. Mehak Kalra, Ms. Manisa Mehta,
Ms. Vaishali Tanwar, &
Ms. Mrigna Shekhar, Advocates
versus
LILU RAM (DECEASED) THR LRS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Devinder Singh Khatana, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is in occupation of premises described as shop in
property bearing No.B-20, Gali No.1, Shera Mohalla, Garhi, East of
Kailash, New Delhi. Concededly, he was inducted as a tenant by Lilu
Ram, who has since died, his estate now being represented by the
respondents. Lilu Ram, during his life time, had instituted a case (EV
No.6A/2014) seeking order of eviction against the petitioner on the
ground of bona fide need invoking the provision contained in Section
14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Admittedly, the
petitioner was served with the summons on 01.03.2014. It is not in
dispute that he entered appearance through counsel in the court of
Additional Rent Controller (ARC) on 20.03.2014. No leave to defend
application was filed within the statutory period. It is against the said
backdrop that by the impugned order dated 20.03.2014 that the ARC
passed the eviction order.
2. The petitioner, by the present revision petition, seeks to point
out that he was mislead and misdirected by Lilu Ram (since deceased)
who had executed a document described as Vachan Patra (translated
by the petitioner as "an undertaking") on 02.03.2014, just one day
after the petitioner had been served with the summons under Section
25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, undertaking to withdraw
the eviction case from the court and also to execute all documents to
transfer the title of the subject property in terms of mutual agreement.
It is the case of the petitioner that earlier Lilu Ram had entered into an
arrangement in the nature of memorandum of understanding (MOU)
(page 78 of the paper book) whereby he had agreed to transfer the
subject property for consideration in his favour. A copy of the said
document would reflect payment of Rs.1,00,000/- which the petitioner
claims was towards the sale consideration. The respondent
undoubtedly disputes genuineness of such documents or background
facts as have been pleaded. But, it cannot be ignored that the petitioner
has instituted a suit for specific performance based on the said very
documents, of course, post the eviction order seeking relief thereupon.
3. In the above peculiar facts and circumstances, this court is of
the opinion that the case does throw up triable issues, which cannot be
ignored or trivialized. The bona fide of the original petitioner is under
cloud as the document in question, if executed, was indicative of
different intent and if not meant to be followed up amounted to
misdirecting the petitioner herein. The impugned order is, thus, set
aside.
4. The petitioner herein is granted leave to defend. For such
purposes, he is called upon to file written statement, which he must do
within thirty days hereof. The case thereafter will proceed in
accordance with law.
5. The parties are directed to appear before the Additional Rent
Controller for above purposes on 1st February, 2018.
6. The petition and the application filed therewith are disposed of
in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 17, 2018
vk
