Delhi High Court
Ram Charan Aggarwal (D) Through Lr vs Smt. Prem Lata & Anr. on 5 October, 2021
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 5th October, 2021
+ CM(M) 640/2021 & CM No.33116/2021 (stay)
RAM CHARAN AGGARWAL (D)
THROUGH LR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Singh,
Advocate
versus
PREM LATA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Akash Panwar and
Mr. Ankit Banati, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
impugned the order dated 16th September, 2021 passed by the Rent
Controller, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RC ARC 479653/2016 on the ground
that the printout from the website of the Court shows that the leave to defend
application filed by the petitioner in respect of the eviction petition filed
under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (DRC Act), has
been dismissed, however, the judgment had not been made available.
2. On 22nd September, 2021, notice was issued in the present petition on
the submission of the petitioner that despite the fact that the website of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAMTA ARYA
Signing Date:07.10.2021
13:11:06
District Court shows that the present leave to defend application has been
dismissed, the judgment was not made available. The operation of the
impugned judgment was stayed only on account of its non-availability.
3. Today, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
submits that the impugned judgment of the Rent Controller has been
obtained by him on 22nd September, 2021, itself, the date on which notice
was issued in the present petition. It is contended that the said judgment was
pronounced in open court on 16th September, 2021 and merely because the
same was uploaded few days later would not be a ground for the petitioner
to file the present petition on the ground that the judgment was not in
existence, as has been stated in the present petition. There is nothing
extraordinary about the judgment being uploaded few days after it was
pronounced in open court. This is all the more relevant in the present case
where the statute itself gives six months time period before the recovery of
possession could be made by the landlord from the tenant. Therefore,
petitioner should have waited for a few days for the certified copy of the
judgment to be made available before rushing to this Court.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
relied upon the order dated 11th December, 2020 of the Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No.4022/2020 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu
XIE & Ors. to contend that the judgment pronounced in open court should
be made available on the same date or immediately thereafter. It is
submitted that as was done by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the
impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back for
reconsideration.
5. In the above said case before the Supreme Court, the operative
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAMTA ARYA
Signing Date:07.10.2021
13:11:06
portion of the judgment of the High Court was announced in open court on
31st July, 2019. However, the judgment was uploaded on 15th May, 2020
after 9½ months. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that
orders pronounced by a Judge in open court should be immediately made
available to the parties so that the party aggrieved with the said order may
invoke legal remedies against the said order. In the present case, admittedly
the judgment was pronounced in open court on 16 th September, 2021 and
leave to defend application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed.
The certified copy of the said judgment was made available on 22 nd
September, 2021. Though there may have been some delay in making the
judgment available, the magnitude of the delay was not such so as to be
covered within the ambit of the directions of the Supreme Court in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra)
6. Further, in the present case, no prejudice has been caused to the
petitioner by a delay of few days in making the judgment available. In this
regard refence may be made to Section 14(7) of the DRC Act, which is set
out herein below:
"Section 14. Protection of tenant against eviction
xxx xxx xxx
(7) Where an order for the recovery of possession of any
premises is made on the ground specified in clause (e) of the
proviso to sub-section (1), the landlord shall not be entitled to
obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of
six months from the date of the order."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAMTA ARYA
Signing Date:07.10.2021
13:11:06
7. Taking into account that Section 14(7) of the DRC Act itself provides
for a period of six months before the said eviction order could be enforced
against the petitioner/tenant, even if there was few days delay in uploading
the said order or certified copy being made available, no prejudice was
caused to the petitioner. The petitioner should have waited for a reasonable
period of time for the judgment to be made available and challenged the
same on merits. Instead, the present petition has been filed casting
aspersions on the conduct of the Rent Controller. The present petition is an
abuse of the process of law and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-.
AMIT BANSAL, J.
OCTOBER 05, 2021
dk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:MAMTA ARYA
Signing Date:07.10.2021
13:11:06
