JASVINDER SINGH HEERA Vs. RAJ RANI THR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 39 Delhi Rent Control Act was converted into CM(M) vide order of this Court dated 15th February, 2012. THIS has been filed by the petitioner, who was the tenant in the suit premises and whose eviction was sought by the respondent on the grounds under Section 14(1) (f), (h) and (j) of the DRC Act. The order was passed by the ARC, Ms. R. Kiran Nath on 1st February, 1997 upholding the ground of eviction under Section 14(1)(j) and thereby directing the petitioner herein to carry out the repairs of the damaged part of the premises and restore back it to its position as it had been let out, within 10 days. THIS was carried by the petitioner in appeal before the ARCT. The finding of the ARC to the effect that as far as other structure, i.e., cement flooring is concerned, was maintained. However, while remanding the matter to ARC, an inquiry was directed to be conducted as regard to other damages. Thereafter, ARC Nivedita Anil Sharma vide order dated 21st August, 2001 recorded a finding in the following manner :

(2.) THIS matter was again carried in appeal to ARCT by the petitioner. At this time, ARCT Mr. G.P. Thareja made site inspection and reported on 18th October, 2001 as under :

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as also respondent at length and gone through the records. The above facts have been noted to see as to how the litigation has gone beyond the extent it was required. After certain point of time, the litigation seems to be frivolous and luxurious. After the inspection carried by ARCT Mr. G.P. Thareja himself, the matter was listed for arguments. To my mind, nothing more was required thereafter. The observations made by the ARC that it appears that the respondent has not complied with the orders of ARCT and has not removed the cement floor to fix electric machine and construct pucca masonry tank was dealt with by the ARCT stating that it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have given opportunity to prove the photographs and also lead evidence in support thereof, with the right of rebuttal to the tenant. There was no such need of conducting a full-fledged trial, which the case seems to have undergone for the last so many years. Further, the observations of Mr. O.P. Gupta as contained in para 15 and 17 reproduced herein are palpably erroneous :