GYANENDER KUMAR VERMA Vs. KAILASH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE two orders of even date 02.07.2011, the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) had disposed of three applications filed by the present petitioner. First two applications had sought initiation of the contempt proceedings and perjury against the non-applicant i.e. Kailash Chand Jain and the third application was filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Code) seeking a prayer to the effect that the order dated 21.02.2007 as also the subsequent order dated 26.03.2007 passed in pending eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) be dismissed; contention in this application was that there was a fraud which had been played upon the petitioner and since all proceedings get vitiated if fraud is proved, the impugned order dated 21.02.2007 as also the subsequent order of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 26.03.2007 are non-est and are liable to be set aside.

(2.) RECORD shows that an eviction petition has been filed by the landlord-Smt. Rajpati under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA. Contention was that the tenant-Smt. Sharbati Devi had sub-let the disputed premises in favour of Smt. Shakuntla Devi; premises comprise of a shop bearing municipal number 1793 situated at Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. On 09.07.2001, the eviction petition was decreed in favour of the landlord. The appeal was dismissed on 22.10.2001. In second appeal, vide order dated 30.05.2003 passed by the High Court, the matter was remanded back to the ARC to decide the dispute afresh. Certain observations made by the High Court in its order dated 30.05.2003 have been highlighted i.e. at para 14 (page 54) of the paper book. Contention of the petitioner is that the High Court even at that stage had noted that there was a possibility of the landlady having exploited the situation of the estranged relationship between the alleged tenant and sub-tenant. On 21.02.2007 after the direction of remand, the eviction petition was again decreed in favour of the landlady. An appeal was filed before the RCT which is yet pending adjudication.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment reported in (2012) 2 SCC 60 titled as Iqbal Singh Narang and Ors. vs. Veeran Narang to substantiate his submission.