Delhi High Court
Sanjay Bansal vs Kusum Lata Jain on 27 July, 2018
$~17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 27th July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3497/2015
SANJAY BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.S. Sharma, Advocate
with Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw,
Adv. along with petitioner in
person.
versus
KUSUM LATA JAIN ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. P.K.Rawal, Advocate with
Mr. Alok Pandey, & Mr. Tarun
Agarwal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
% O R D E R (ORAL)
1. The petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of one shop,
measuring 6.80 x 2.60 meters, ground floor, forming part of property
bearing No.1747-48, Gali Satyawati Lane, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni
Chowk, Delhi-110006. An eviction petition in the name of the
respondent describing her as the landlady had been filed in the court of
Additional Rent Controller (ARC) against the petitioner, it having
been registered as eviction case No.E-90/2014, the ground invoked
being under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, i.e.
non-payment of rent.
2. The petitioner, upon being served with the notice of the said
petition, appeared in the court of learned ARC and while filing written
Crl. M.C. No.3497/2015 Page 1 of 4
statement also presented an application under Section 340 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), submitting that the petition had
been filed by someone impersonating as the respondent herein, her
signatures allegedly having been forged and fabricated on the eviction
petition, the affidavit filed in its support as also on the vakalatnama in
favour of her advocates Mr. P.K. Rawal and Mr. Harish Kumar,
practicing from Chamber Nos.241-242, Civil Wing, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi-110054. The forgery is sought to be demonstrated by
comparison to the signatures of the respondent as appearing in the
afore-mentioned pleadings and other documents with copy of the
registered will dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure P-2).
3. When the aforesaid application was taken up by the learned
ARC on 28.05.2015, the counsel appearing for the petitioner
(respondent herein) in the eviction case made a statement seeking to
withdraw the eviction petition. Though application was opposed by
the counsel for the petitioner herein, i.e. respondent/tenant in the
eviction case, the ARC permitted the petition to be withdrawn and
dismissed it accordingly holding, inter alia, that the application under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. was "not maintainable" referring in this context
to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Iabal Singh Narang vs. Veeran
Narang, (2012) 2 SCC 60.
4. The present petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this
court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed questioning the correctness,
legality and propriety of the afore-mentioned order of the ARC,
trashing the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner
Crl. M.C. No.3497/2015 Page 2 of 4
herein without inquiry, not even a response having been called from
the opposite side or the counsel representing it, in the submissions of
the learned counsel for the petitioner, with wrong reference to the
ruling of the Supreme Court in Iabal Singh Narang (supra).
5. The learned counsel on both sides have been heard.
6. It is well conceded by the learned counsel on both sides that the
forum of ARC is a "civil court" by virtue of the provision contained
in Section 36 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as indeed, by virtue of
provision in Section 195(3) Cr.P.C. It is on that account that the
learned ARC had the jurisdiction to deal with the application under
Section 340 Cr.P.C., which, it is submitted, pertains to offences which
had been committed in relation to the proceedings pending before the
said forum within the meaning of Section 195 Cr.P.C. But, dismissal
of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is a subject-matter of
remedy of appeal which is available under Section 341 Cr.P.C., which
reads thus:-
"(1) Any person on whose application any Court other
than a High Court has refused to make a complaint
under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 340,
or against whom such a complaint has been made by
such Court, may appeal to the Court to which such
former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-
section (4) of section 195, and the superior Court may
thereupon, after notice to the parties concerned, direct
the withdrawal of the complaint, or, as the case may be,
making of the complaint which such former Court might
have made under section 340, and if it makes such
complaint, the provisions of that section shall apply
accordingly.
Crl. M.C. No.3497/2015 Page 3 of 4
(2) An order under this section, and subject to any such
order, an order under section 340, shall be final, and
shall not be subject to revision."
7. Under the scheme of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the rent
control tribunal is the appellate forum against the orders passed by the
court of Rent Controller, this by virtue of Section 38 of Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 and the latter forum is subordinate to the former.
8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted,
on instructions, that he may be permitted to withdraw the present
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and instead be given liberty to
approach the Rent Control Tribunal by appeal under Section 341
Cr.P.C., his submission being that the time spent in these proceedings
may be discounted for purposes of condonation of delay.
9. The petition at hand is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as
prayed for granted.
10. Needless to add, the concerned forum which is approached
pursuant to the above noted liberty shall have regard to the above
noted explanation for delay while considering the prayer for its
condonation, in accordance with law.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 27, 2018
vk
