Delhi High Court
Rajender Kashyap vs Khandelwal Jain Society & Anr. on 30 August, 2022
$~65 (Appellate)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 880/2022 &CM APPL. 37841/2022, CM APPL.
37842/2022
RAJENDER KASHYAP ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Awijit Paliwal, Adv. with
petitioner in person
versus
KHANDELWAL JAIN SOCIETY & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pranav Jain, Mr. Sarthak
and Ms. Srishti Govil, Advs for Respondent
1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 30.08.2022
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
assails the order dated 26th August 2022, passed by the learned Rent
Controller ("the learned RC") in Ex. 446/2022 (Khandelwal Jain
Society v. Surrender Kumar).
2. Ex. 446/2022 was in the nature of execution proceedings for
execution of order dated 15th October 2013, passed by the learned RC
in Eviction Petition 31/2013 (Khandelwal Jain Society v. Surrender
Kumar). The petitioner was Respondent 2 in the Eviction Petition and
Judgment Debtor 2 (JD-2) in the execution proceedings.
3. The learned RC vide judgment dated 13th October 2012, allowed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 880/2022 Page 1
Signing Date:01.09.2022
14:15:33
the Eviction Petition of the respondents and permitted the respondents
to recover possession of the premises at Quarter No. 2-A,Jain Mandir
Compound, Jaisingh Pura, Jain Mandir Road, Raja Bazar, New Delhi
("the tenanted premises", hereinafter) , under Clause (b) of the proviso
to Section 14(1)1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("the DRC
Act").
4. An appeal, preferred thereagainst by Surrender Kumar, who was
Respondent 1 in the Eviction Petition and JD-1 in the execution
proceedings, was dismissed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal ("the
learned RCT") on 28th September 2019. CM(M) 1491/2019
(Surrender Kumar v. Khandelwal Jain Society and Anr) was also
dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 7th
November 2019. SLP (C) 3591/2020, preferred thereagainst by JD-1
Surrender Kumar was also dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court
vide order dated 18th February 2020.
5. Despite this, the petitioner, who has, therefore, been in
possession of the tenanted premises for over nine years as on date,
after the order of eviction passed by the learned RC, moved an
application before the learned RC in Ex. 446/2022, praying for time to
14. Protection of tenant against eviction. -
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order
or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in
favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed
manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the
following grounds only, namely:-
*****
(b) that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let, assigned or
otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without
obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord...
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 880/2022 Page 2
Signing Date:01.09.2022
14:15:33
vacate the tenanted premises till March 2023, on the ground that he
was in impecunious circumstances and that his school going child was
in Class 11.
6. The said application has been rejected by the learned RC vide
order dated 26th August 2022, against which the petitioner is before
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. The learned RC has observed that the plea of the petitioner
having school going children cannot a ground to extend the time for
the petitioner to continue staying in the tenanted premises, as the
petitioner's elder child is in Class 11, and there are no impending
board examinations. I may note that the petitioner has a younger child
who is in Class 4.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to
the identity cards of the petitioner's children, who are studying in
Guru Harikishan Public School, which have been placed on record. He
points that the identity cards enters, as the address of the children,
"31/2C, Sector II, DIZ Area, Gole Market, New Delhi - 110001". As
such, submits learned Counsel for the respondents, the petitioner is not
in dearth of any alternative accommodation where he could reside.
9. To a query from the Court, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
on instructions, submits that the aforesaid premises 31/2C, Sector II,
DIZ Area, Gole Market, New Delhi - 110001 are tenanted residential
premises in which father of the petitioner is staying.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 880/2022 Page 3
Signing Date:01.09.2022
14:15:33
10. The petitioner has been in possession of the tenanted premises
for nine years after the eviction order had come to be passed in favour
of the respondents by the learned RC. Even as on date, the petitioner
is unwilling to vacate the tenanted premises and is seeking nine
months' further time to do so. The eviction order of the petitioner has
been upheld up to the Supreme Court.
11. Besides, the impugned order is purely discretionary in nature. It
cannot, even otherwise, therefore, invite interference under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, especially as the manner of exercise
of discretion by the learned RC cannot be said, by any stretch of
imagination, to be perverse.
12. For all these reasons, there is no merit in this petition which is
accordingly dismissed in limine. All miscellaneous applications also
stand disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AUGUST 30, 2022
r.bararia
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CM(M) 880/2022 Page 4
Signing Date:01.09.2022
14:15:33
