Delhi High Court
Aney Pal Singh vs Ashok Kumar Kholi on 2 April, 2024
$~13 to 16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
13
+ RC.REV. 174/2018
ANEY PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Shishir Singh, Adv.
versus
ASHOK KUMAR KHOLI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms Nidhi Sharma, Adv.
14
+ RC.REV. 225/2018
DULI CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Shishir Singh, Adv.
versus
AVTAR SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Anil Sharma, Adv.
15
+ RC.REV. 228/2018
ANEY PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Shishir Singh, Adv.
versus
BISHAMBAR DAYAL JOSHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms Nidhi Sharma
16
+ RC.REV. 231/2018
UDAY PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Shishir Singh, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN
Signing Date:02.04.2024 RC.REV. 174/2018 & connected matters Page 1 of 6 pages
16:48:50
versus
PREM LATA JOSHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms Nidhi Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
ORDER
% 02.04.2024
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
1. The above petitions assail dismissal of the eviction petitions. In
view of order passed by a coordinate bench in RC.REV.171/2019 on
the basis of decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1987 SC
2028, covering the present petitions, learned counsel for respondent in
RC.REV.225/2018 fairly submits that the impugned order is not
sustainable, so the same can be set aside and matter can be remanded to
the Additional Rent Controller for fresh adjudication after considering
all pleas raised by both sides. But learned counsel for respondent in the
remaining petitions requests for pass over to obtain instructions of her
clients on similar lines. Learned counsel for respondent in RC.REV.
225/2018 submits that in post lunch session he has to appear in other
courts, so his consent for remand of the matter may be accepted.
2. As requested, recall after lunch.
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
APRIL 2, 2024/ry
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN
Signing Date:02.04.2024 RC.REV. 174/2018 & connected matters Page 2 of 6 pages
16:48:50
$~13 to 16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 02.04.2024
13
+ RC.REV. 174/2018
ANEY PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Shishir Singh, Adv.
versus
ASHOK KUMAR KHOLI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms Nidhi Sharma, Adv.
14
+ RC.REV. 225/2018
DULI CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Shishir Singh, Adv.
versus
AVTAR SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Anil Sharma, Adv.
15
+ RC.REV. 228/2018
ANEY PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Shishir Singh, Adv.
versus
BISHAMBAR DAYAL JOSHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms Nidhi Sharma
16
+ RC.REV. 231/2018
UDAY PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Shishir Singh, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN
Signing Date:02.04.2024 RC.REV. 174/2018 & connected matters Page 3 of 6 pages
16:48:50
versus
PREM LATA JOSHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms Nidhi Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. In the pre-lunch session today, the following order was passed:
"1. The above petitions assail dismissal of the eviction petitions. In view
of order passed by a coordinate bench in RC.REV.171/2019 on the basis of
decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1987 SC 2028, covering the
present petitions, learned counsel for respondent in RC.REV.225/2018 fairly
submits that the impugned order is not sustainable, so the same can be set
aside and matter can be remanded to the Additional Rent Controller for fresh
adjudication after considering all pleas raised by both sides. But learned
counsel for respondent in the remaining petitions requests for pass over to
obtain instructions of her clients on similar lines. Learned counsel for
respondent in RC.REV. 225/2018 submits that in post lunch session he has to
appear in other courts, so his consent for remand of the matter may be
accepted.
2. As requested, recall after lunch."
2. In this post-lunch session, learned counsel for respondents in RC.
REV.174/2018, RC. REV. 228/2018 and RC. REV. 231/2018 submits that
her clients have instructed her to consent for setting aside the impugned
order in view of legal position described in pre-lunch order.
3. By way of these petitions brought under proviso to Section 25B(8) of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioners/landlords have assailed orders of
the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the eviction petitions under
Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act were dismissed. As reflected
from the orders impugned in these petitions, the learned Additional Rent
Signing Date:02.04.2024 RC.REV. 174/2018 & connected matters Page 4 of 6 pages
Controller after summoning the original records of Delhi Development
Authority (DDA) recorded the findings that the subject premises exists on
nazul land, vested in the Delhi Administration and the lease over the said
land granted in favour of predecessors of the petitioners had expired long
ago, so they were not left with any proprietary right to execute sale
agreement qua the same and consequently, the petitioners are not owners of
the subject premises. After recording these findings, without examining the
remaining ingredients of the provision under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the
eviction petitions by way of the impugned orders.
4. As mentioned above, both sides admit that these cases stand squarely
covered by an order of the coordinate bench of this Court in the case titled
Raj Kumar @ Sube Singh vs. Archana Devi, RC.REV. 171/2019 decided
on 28.11.2019, observing thus:
"8. Neither the respondent-tenant nor the DDA has come forward to
contend that the lease which was executed in favour of the predecessor of the
petitioner was ever determined or terminated or expired by a flux of time, the
court suo motu returned this finding without any such plea being raised
before it.
9. Clearly the Rent Controller has exceeded its jurisdiction in looking into
the document and returning the above finding. Rent Controller has clearly
erred in not noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shanti Sharma &
Ors. vs. Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors., AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2028 wherein the
Supreme Court held that even in a case where the lease had been cancelled
by the DDA a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 would still be maintainable as no steps had been taken by the DDA for
dispossession of the lessee therein."
5. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the coordinate
bench as recorded above.
Signing Date:02.04.2024 RC.REV. 174/2018 & connected matters Page 5 of 6 pages
6. Accordingly, with consent of both sides, these petitions are allowed
and the impugned orders are set aside, remanding these matters to the
learned Rent Controller for fresh adjudication after giving fair opportunity to
both sides to address arguments. Both sides shall appear before the learned
Additional Rent Controller on 06.04.2024 at 02:00 pm and present a copy of
this order, which be given dasti to both sides under signatures of the Court
Master.
GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGE
APRIL 2, 2024/ry/rk
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signing Date:02.04.2024 RC.REV. 174/2018 & connected matters Page 6 of 6 pages
