Delhi High Court
Uma Shankar & Anr. vs Charanjeet Singh & Ors. on 2 November, 2020
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 02.11.2020
+ CM(M) 492/2020
UMA SHANKAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
CHARANJEET SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Maurya, Advocate.
.
For the Respondent: Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.25029/2020 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 492/2020 & CM APPL.25027/2020 (stay), CM
APPL.25028/2020 (for condonation of delay)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioners impugn order dated 04.02.2020, whereby, the
review petition, filed by the petitioners, seeking review of order dated
24.12.2019 has been dismissed.
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:02.11.2020 18:55:52
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
3. By order dated 24.12.2019, the evidence of the petitioners
(respondents before the Trial Court) was closed on the ground that the
witness Rakesh Kumar, who was sought to be examined by the
petitioners, was not produced despite several opportunities.
4. Subject proceedings arise out of a petition filed under Section
14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the petitioner
on the ground of bonafide necessity.
5. The eviction petition was filed on 20.02.2012. The case was
fixed for the petitioners (tenants) evidence by order dated 19.09.2017.
The affidavit of RW - Rakesh Kumar was filed on 11.01.2018.
Additional Rent Controller has recorded that the witness did not
appear despite several opportunities and accordingly, closed
respondents' evidence.
6. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that
though the affidavit of RW - Rakesh Kumar was filed on 1101.2018,
the cross-examination of RW1 - the petitioner was completed only on
04.06.2019. Thereafter an objection was raised by the respondent
(eviction petitioner) with regard to the relevance of production of
Rakesh Kumar as a witness. Said issue was decided by an order dated
11.10.2019 and thereafter the case was adjourned to 05.12.2020, on
which date adjournment was sought by the petitioner since Rakesh
Kumar was not able to appear due to some personal difficulty.
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:02.11.2020 18:55:52
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
7. The case was adjourned to 24.12.2019, subject to payment of
costs. On 24.12.2019, an application was moved stating that RW -
Rakesh Kumar was showing reluctance for appearing in Court. The
Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 24.12.2019, held that several
opportunities had been granted for production of witness - Rakesh
Kumar and since he had not appeared, respondents' evidence was
closed.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that cross-
examination of RW1 was concluded only on 04.06.2019 and
thereafter objection with regard to the relevance of RW - Rakesh
Kumar was raised, which was decided only on 11.10.2019.
9. Perusal of the order sheet shows that only two opportunities
were taken by the petitioners for production of RW - Rakesh Kumar.
10. Clearly, the Additional Rent Controller has erred in holding that
several opportunities had been granted to the petitioners for
production of witness - Rakesh Kumar and he had not appeared
despite several opportunities.
11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am
of the view that one opportunity should be granted to the petitioners to
produce the witness - Rakesh Kumar.
12. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that
Rakesh Kumar is required to be summoned and besides Rakesh
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:02.11.2020 18:55:52
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Kumar, there are two other witnesses, i.e., Surender Gupta and
Ravinder Gupta, who need to be produced on behalf of the petitioners
(respondents before the Trial Court).
13. The witnesses Mr. Surender Gupta and Mr. Ravinder Gupta are
stated to be neighbours of the petitioners. Since Mr. Surender Gupta,
Mr. Ravinder Gupta and Mr. Rakesh Kumar are all private
individuals, it was the responsibility of the petitioners to produce
them.
14. It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no
affidavit in evidence of Surender Gupta and Ravinder Gupta has been
filed before the Trial Court, though they are named in the list of
witnesses. Mr. Surender Gupta and Ravinder Gupta are private
individuals and stated to be the neighbours of the petitioners, it was
obligatory on the part of the petitioners to have filed their affidavits in
evidence in case petitioners was seeking to produce them as
witnesses. Since petitioners have failed to file the affidavits in
evidence of Surender Gupta and Ravinder Gupta, who are private
individuals, no opportunity can be granted to the petitioners to either
produce them or summon them as witnesses.
15. Insofar as the witness Rakesh Kumar is concerned, since his
evidence affidavit has already been filed by the petitioners, it is the
responsibility of the petitioners to produce him before the Rent
Controller on his own responsibility. No summons are required to be
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:02.11.2020 18:55:52
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
issued to him since he is a private witness whose affidavit in evidence
has been filed by the petitioner.
16. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Petitioner is
given one opportunity to produce Rakesh Kumar as a witness before
the Trial Court.
17. It is stated that the matter is listed before the Trial Court on
19.11.2020.
18. Since there is a direction by the High Court because of which
recording of evidence due to lockdown cannot take place, the Trial
Court shall fix an appropriate date on 19.11.2020 for production of
Rakesh Kumar by the petitioners as a witness on their own.
19. It is clarified that in case petitioners fail to produce the witness
Rakesh Kumar on the date fixed by the Trial Court, no further
opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners for producing the said
witness and their right shall stand closed.
20. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
21. Copy of the Judgment be uploaded on the High Court website
and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court
Master.
NOVEMBER 02, 2020 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:02.11.2020 18:55:52
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
