ANIL SETH Vs. DELHI COMMISSION FOR WOMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the very jurisdiction of the Delhi Commission for Women ('DCW') [the Respondent No. 1] to entertain a complaint made by Respondent No. 3 against him of sexual harassment, the Petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition, seeking the quashing of the complaint and all proceedings consequent thereto.

(2.) The Petitioner states that he holds a Doctorate in History and teaches at the Deshbandhu College, University of Delhi. He lives on the first floor of his house at Pamposh Enclave, New Delhi. He is a co-owner of the house along with his brother. He states that while teaching at the Deshbandhu College he came to know Respondent No. 3 as well as her husband, both of whom were students at the same College. The Petitioner and his family were going to be away to Japan as he had accepted to work as a Senior Lecturer in a university there between May 2000 and March 2003. There would be no one in the house during this time. Consequently a portion of the ground floor of the house was let out to Respondent No. 3 and her husband at a monthly rent of ' 5,500/- with effect from December 2000. The tenancy was in the name of Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner states that in terms of the lease agreement between the parties, he retained one room in the front portion of the ground floor for storing his furniture and other personal effects while he was away in Japan.

(3.) The Petitioner states that Respondent No. 3 stopped paying rent after September 2001. He further claims that he and his wife lent to Respondent No. 3 and her husband money to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/-. He states that when Respondent No. 3 was approached for the rent beyond September 2001 onwards, she assured that it would be paid upon the Petitioner returning to India from Japan. The Petitioner states that he returned to Delhi on 23rd April 2004 after finishing his teaching stint in Japan and began to reside in the first floor of the property with his wife. He also commenced using a room on the ground floor for a study and no objection was raised by Respondent No. 3. He states that the room had an independent access from outside. It may be noted that the husband of Respondent No. 3 was away from India on some assignment and the occupants of the tenanted premises were Respondent No. 3, her minor daughter and a domestic help.