DALJEET SINGH Vs. YOGRAJ DEV SHANDILYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks assailing the order dated 23.10.2010 of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) and the order dated 06.07.2011 of the District Judge-cum-Addl. Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT).

(2.) The brief facts of this case are noted hereinafter to demonstrate the extent to which a landlord can go in manipulating and abusing the process of law in procuring eviction of a tenant from his premises. The suit premises was let out by the petitioner to the respondent. An eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act) was filed against the respondent and one Dinesh Yadav on the allegations that the respondent had sublet the tenanted premises to Dinesh Yadav. The ex parte eviction order was obtained on 29.05.2004 and in the execution thereof, the possession was obtained on 07.05.2005. The respondent filed an application for setting aside the ex parte eviction order, which came to be dismissed by the ARC. He carried the matter in appeal before the ARCT, who allowed his appeal and remanded the matter back to the ARC for consideration on merit with the direction to dispose the application within one year. The trial on the application was commenced by ARC. The respondent led his evidence. The petitioner having failed to lead any evidence despite opportunities, his evidence was closed. He brought the matter to the High Court, which gave him one opportunity to conclude the evidence. Again having failed to avail that opportunity, his evidence was closed. He again brought the matter to the High Court and this time, he was again given an opportunity to conclude his evidence, subject to payment of some cost. Thereafter, the application for setting aside ex parte filed by the respondent was allowed by the ARC on 23.04.2010. He also simultaneously directed restoration of possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent within two months. The petitioner was also directed to issue notice in this regard to the third party occupant, if any, within two weeks. The petitioner challenged the same before the ARCT, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 06.07.2011. These are the orders of the ARC and the ARCT which are under challenge in the instant petition.

(3.) The findings of courts below are challenged mainly on the ground that the learned ARC has failed to appreciate the evidence in that the testimony of the petitioner on certain facts remained unassailed and that would amount to admission on the part of the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through the deposition of the petitioner in his affidavit as also in his cross examination to contend that his testimony to the effect that the summons were issued to the respondent and were refused, has remained unassailed, and that would be an admission on his part. Learned counsel also submits that the onus was upon the respondent to prove that he did not refuse the summons, and that respondent has not examined either the Process Server or the Postman. It is also his submission that the bald denial of receipt of summons, was not sufficient. The reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Parimal Vs. Veena @ Bharti, 2011 3 SCC 545. He also submits that in any case, the respondent could not be restituted in the tenanted premises, as the same has already been let out by the petitioner to Anil and Amar, and further proceedings in this regard would involve multifarious litigations. In this regard, reliance is placed on the case titled Sham Lal Dhingra Vs. Jaswant Kaur & Another, 1980 17 DLT 456.