Delhi High Court
Bhawna Kalra & Ors. vs Swati Choudhary on 10 November, 2023
$~77
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10.11.2023
+ CM(M) 1867/2023, CM APPL. 58754/2023 & CM APPL. 58755/2023
BHAWNA KALRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pawan Kawrani, Advocate
through VC.
versus
SWATI CHOUDHARY ..... Respondent
Through:
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
impugns the order dated 23.09.2023 passed by CCJ Cum ARC, District
Central, Tis Hazari Court ('Trial Court') in RC ARC 966/2018, titled as Swati
Choudhary v. Hari Shankar, dismissing an application filed by the
petitioner herein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
('CPC') for bringing on record the fact of the gainful employment of the son
of the landlord i.e., the Respondent herein.
1.1. The Petitioner herein is the respondent and the Respondent herein is the
petitioner before the Trial Court.
1.2. The Respondent herein filed eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e)
of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('DRC Act') against late Sh. Hari
Signature Not Verified
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.11.2023
17:20:45
Shankar Kalra i.e., husband of the Petitioner No.1, seeking eviction from the
tenanted premises i.e., one shop bearing no. 9885, situated on the ground floor
in Nawab Ganj, Azad Market, Delhi ('tenanted premises').
1.3. The eviction petition was filed on the ground that the tenanted premises
is required for the residential purpose of the landlord and for opening a shop
for younger son of landlord. In the eviction petition it was stated that the said
younger son is unemployed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is a material fact,
that the eviction petition has been filed for the bonafide requirement of the
younger son of the landlord.
2.1 He states that Respondent's younger son is employed in Bangalore
since May 2019 and till date he is working there, which shows that there is
not bonafide requirement left qua him for the Respondent.
2.2 He states that the information which was sought to be brought on record
through the application filed under Section 151 CPC which was dismissed
vide the impugned order, had been gathered from the social media account of
the son of the petitioner available on the linked.in profile.
3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused
the record.
4. The impugned order dated 24.08.2023 records that judgment stands
reserved in the matter and in fact is listed today i.e., 10.11.2023 for
pronouncement of orders.
5. This petition as per the record was filed on or about 21.10.2023 and has
been listed for the first time today on 10.11.2023. This Court is not persuaded
that the time taken by the Petitioner between 21.09.2023 to 10.11.2023 in
filing this petition and having its listed on 10.11.2023 i.e., the date of
pronouncement of orders before the Trial Court has been reasonably
Signature Not Verified
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.11.2023
17:20:45
explained. This Court is therefore not persuaded to entertain this petition at
this belated stage.
6. In the opinion of this Court, in view of the fact that the judgment
already stands reserved by the Trial Court no interference is warranted at this
stage.
7. The impugned order falls within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and
the does not warrant interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
It is, however, clarified that in case the final order passed by the Trial Court
is against the Petitioner herein, he will be entitled to raise the grounds raised
in this petition in the statutory remedy availed by him against the said order.
8. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application stands
disposed of.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
10 NOVEMBER, 2023/MR/sk
Signature Not Verified
By:RASHMI DABAS
Signing Date:17.11.2023
17:20:45
