Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar Jain vs Bhajan Kaur on 4 July, 2023
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 04.07.2023
+ RC.REV. 627/2018 & CM APPL 53632/2018
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Gyan Mitra, Adv
versus
BHAJAN KAUR ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
: JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL)
1. This is a petition seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated
16.10.2018 passed by ACJ, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in
Eviction Petition No. E-69/2018 titled "Smt. Bhajan Kaur v. Ashok Kumar
Jain" under Section 14 (l) (e) read with Section 25-B of DRC Act, 1958
wherein the application seeking leave to defend has been dismissed and
eviction order passed against the petitioner qua one shop at ground floor of
House No. 6, Parwana Road, Baldev Park, Delhi-51.
2. It is submitted that the respondent has already obtained the possession
of the tenanted premises.
3. Ms. Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner has states that there is a
dispute with regard to the identity of the respondent. She states that the GPA
as well as the Will shows the owner of the property as "Harbhajan Kaur, w/o
Sh Ganpat Rai and the petition for eviction has been filed by "Bhajan Kaur".
Signature Not Verified
By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:07.07.2023
19:16:50
4. A perusal of the application seeking leave to defend demonstrates that
the said issue regarding identity of the respondent has not been raised by the
petitioner before the ARC.
5. In addition, even though the petitioner disputes the tenant-landlord
relationship, the leave to defend does not state as to who is the landlord of
the petitioner. Hence, the leave to defend is only making bald denials.
6. The power of the Revision Court has been defined by the Division
Bench in 'Director Directorate of Education and Another vs. Mohd.
Shamim and Others' [2019:DHC:6510-DB]. The relevant part of paragraph
3 of the judgment reads as under:-
"3. . . . Relying on the earlier judgment of the five Judges in
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh,
(2014) 9 SCC 78 has held that the High Court in revisional
jurisdiction (under the Rent Act of Andhra Pradesh) is expected
to see only whether the findings are illegal or perverse in the
sense that a reasonably informed persons will not enter such a
finding and that none of the Rent Control Acts entitle the High
Courts to interfere with findings of facts or to take a different
view on reappreciation of evidence; it was held that revisional
power is not and cannot be equated with the power of
reconsideration of all questions of fact as a Court of First
Appeal."
7. The learned ARC in para 5 of the impugned order has held as under:
"5. There is no denial by the respondent that the petitioner is
not her landlady. The respondent admits that he occupies the
premises as tenant but does not disclose the name of the
Signature Not Verified
By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:07.07.2023
19:16:50
landlord. This fact coupled with the fact that there is no specific
denial as to landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner
and the respondent. The same is inferred to be existent."
8. Hence, I am of the view that there is no infirmity, illegality or
perversity in the order of the ARC dated 16.10.2018, requiring interference
by this Court.
9. In addition, it is also stated by Ms. Mitra, learned counsel for the
petitioner that after obtaining possession of the tenanted premises, the
respondent has not used the premises for the purpose for which the petition
was filed.
10. I am of the view that in case same is not done, the remedy of the
petitioner is under Section 19 of The Delhi Rent Control Act,1958.
Petitioner is at liberty to initiate action in case the situation has so arisen.
11. For the said reason, I am not inclined to entertain the petition and the
same is dismissed.
12. Dasti.
JASMEET SINGH, J
JULY 4, 2023
sk
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:07.07.2023
19:16:50
