Delhi High Court
Sudesh Chhikara vs Divisional Commissioner, Delhi And Ors on 19 May, 2025
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 380/2024, CM APPL. 28178/2024 & CM APPL. 30350/2025
SUDESH CHHIKARA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Jai Pal Singh, Advocate.
versus
DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI AND ORS
....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anubha Gupta, Panel Counsel
(Civil) for GNCTD/r-1 & 2.
Mr. Robin Ratnakar David and Mr.
Nihar Baijal, Advocates for
DHCLSC/ R-3.
% Date of Decision: 19.05.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J: (ORAL)
1. The present letters patent appeal has been filed assailing the
judgment dated 02.04.2024 (hereinafter referred as "impugned judgment"),
whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition
filed by the appellant bearing W.P.(C) 4695/2024 titled Sudesh Chhikara
vs. Divisional Commissioner, Delhi & Ors., on the ground that the
appellant had not been able to demonstrate the perversity in the
observations made by two authorities/forum below i.e. by the Appellate
Court of Divisional Commissioner as also by the District Magistrate,
(South-West), Delhi.
2. The appellant had preferred the underlying writ petition challenging
the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the Appellate Court of the Divisional
Commissioner, Delhi rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant herein
assailing the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the District Magistrate
wherein the District Magistrate had directed the appellant herein to vacate
the property bearing No. C-33, Mansa Ram Park, New Delhi- 110059
(hereinafter referred as "Subject property").
3. It is the case of the appellant that respondent no.3/Baljeet Singh, who
is father-in-law of the appellant, had filed a petition bearing case appeal
no.1/82/2017 titled "Baljeet Singh vs. Sudesh Chhikara" under the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007
(hereinafter referred to as "Senior Citizens Act, 2007") for the eviction of
the appellant from the subject property before the respondent no.2/District
Magistrate (South-West), Delhi (hereinafter referred as "District
Magistrate"). Thereafter, the appellant preferred writ petition bearing
W.P.(C) 11326/2019 before this court challenging the jurisdiction of the
District Magistrate in entertaining the petition of the respondent no.3 on the
ground that the subject property is not a residential property as the
appellant was running a school from the subject property.
4. Vide order dated 14.09.2021, the District Magistrate held respondent
no.3 as the sole and absolute owner of the subject property with direction to
the appellant to vacate the subject property and not to interfere with the
peaceful possession of the respondent no.3 in the subject property.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the District
Magistrate, the appellant preferred an appeal before the respondent
no.1/Divisional Commissioner under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
5. Vide order dated 13.12.2023, the Divisional Commissioner dismissed
the said appeal of the appellant and held that the District Magistrate ought
not to have gone into the question of title of the subject property and that it
should be decided in the Civil Suit which is pending adjudication before
the learned ADJ, Dwarka Court, New Delhi. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
decision of the appellate authority, the appellant has filed the present
appeal.
6. Mr. Jai Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant states that though
in law, the procedure envisaged under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007
particularly the inquiry to be carried out by the SDM and the subsequent
proceedings before the District Magistrate and the appellate proceedings
before the Divisional Commissioner are summary in nature, yet the original
inquiry proceedings before the SDM is one of recording findings of fact
and to subjectively satisfy himself about the harassment both physical and
mental being suffered by the respondent no.3/complainant. He states that in
the present case, the SDM's report dated 31.07.2021 is bereft of any reason
much less any finding of fact and does not fulfil the criteria envisioned
under the Act. In support thereof, he draws attention to the SDM's report
dated 31.07.2021 and states that the said report cannot withstand the
scrutiny of law. According to him, if the substratum of the case i.e. SDM's
report dated 31.07.2021 is eschewed from consideration, the entire edifice
of the case of the respondent no.3/complainant would fall and the appellant
would be entitled to possession of the subject property.
7. Learned counsel invites attention to para 9 of the impugned
judgment to submit that the learned Single Judge merely relied upon the so
called findings recorded by the two forums below to dismiss the writ
petition without considering the fact that no findings of fact was actually
recorded by the authorities below. He states that the learned Single Judge
had misdirected himself while observing that the appellant was unable to
demonstrate that the observations by the lower authorities is completely
perverse and is based on no evidence. He contends that once the SDM's
report is bereft of any reason or findings of fact, the order directing eviction
by the District Magistrate as well as the appellate authority i.e. Divisional
Commissioner on the basis of the very same SDM's report, would be
perverse and non est in law. Thus, according to him, this Court ought to
interfere and remit the matter back to the SDM for conducting fresh inquiry
and putting the appellant back in possession till such time.
8. Mr. Robin Ratnakar David, learned counsel appearing for respondent
no.3 refutes the submissions of the appellant and supports the findings
recorded by the lower authorities as also the observations in the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the
impugned judgment and examined the records of the case.
10. We find from the record that what the learned counsel for the
appellant referred to as the SDM's report dated 31.07.2021 is only an order
passed by the District Magistrate in case appeal no.1/82/2017. The actual
report of the SDM appears to have not been placed on record, however, the
order dated 14.09.2021 of the District Magistrate carries an extract of the
inquiry carried out by the SDM. A perusal of the order of the District
Magistrate indicates that after considering the report of the SDM as also
hearing the parties, the District Magistrate has furnished reasons and
observations and findings apart from referring to relevant law on the
subject matter, directed eviction of the appellant from the subject property.
Thus, the submission that there are no findings recorded by the SDM
during the inquiry or that the District Magistrate had not rendered any
reason for eviction is not borne out from the records. In fact, the said
submission is contrary to the records. Thus, the question of perversity does
not arise.
11. We find that the learned Single Judge had examined the said
arguments and the records in detail and has made very relevant legal
observations in paras 9, 10 & 11 which reads thus:-
"9. Two forums below have come to the conclusion that the
Respondent No.3 was being ill-treated by the Petitioner herein. In
view of the concurrent findings arrived at by the two forums below,
this Comi is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent facts
rendered by both the authorities while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner has
not been able to demonstrate that the observations of the
authorities below is completely perverse and is based on without
any evidence. It is well settled that the Courts while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India do not
substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by the authorities
below only because one more view is possible.
10. The Appellate Authority has adequately protected the Petitioner
by stating that there is no finding regarding the title of the property
in question. This Court is in agreement with the finding of the
Appellate Authority and makes it clear that the Trial Court will not
be influenced by any observations made by the authorities under
the Senior Citizens Act on the title of the property in question.
11. It is stated that the Suit bearing CS No.282/20 19 is pending
before the learned ADJ, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. The Trial
Court is directed to consider the suit on its own merits and on the
basis of the evidence adduced by the parties."
12. We find that the learned Single Judge had taken note of the fact that
a Civil suit bearing CS No.282 of 2019 is pending before the District
Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi. That apart, learned counsel for respondent
no.3 also informed that another civil suit between the parties is pending
adjudication. Learned counsel for the appellant did not deny the fact that
the appellant had vacated the subject property and was actually running a
school in the said premises. Since the appellant is already out of possession
and two civil suits are already pending adjudication before the civil courts,
a writ court for obvious reasons would not be able to examine the dispute
pertaining to ownership and title. Even otherwise, we find that the lower
authorities had rendered reasons for eviction of the appellant which are
summary in nature and are sufficient for the purposes of eviction under the
Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The
appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
MAY 19, 2025
kct/rl
