(1.) The petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of one shop, measuring 6.80 x 2.60 meters, ground floor, forming part of property bearing No.1747-48, Gali Satyawati Lane, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. An eviction petition in the name of the respondent describing her as the landlady had been filed in the court of Additional Rent Controller (ARC) against the petitioner, it having been registered as eviction case No.E-90/2014, the ground invoked being under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, i.e. non-payment of rent.
(2.) The petitioner, upon being served with the notice of the said petition, appeared in the court of learned ARC and while filing written statement also presented an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), submitting that the petition had been filed by someone impersonating as the respondent herein, her signatures allegedly having been forged and fabricated on the eviction petition, the affidavit filed in its support as also on the vakalatnama in favour of her advocates Mr. P.K. Rawal and Mr. Harish Kumar, practicing from Chamber Nos.241-242, Civil Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054. The forgery is sought to be demonstrated by comparison to the signatures of the respondent as appearing in the afore-mentioned pleadings and other documents with copy of the registered will dated 18.07.2014 (Annexure P-2).
(3.) When the aforesaid application was taken up by the learned ARC on 28.05.2015, the counsel appearing for the petitioner (respondent herein) in the eviction case made a statement seeking to withdraw the eviction petition. Though application was opposed by the counsel for the petitioner herein, i.e. respondent/tenant in the eviction case, the ARC permitted the petition to be withdrawn and dismissed it accordingly holding, inter alia, that the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was "not maintainable" referring in this context to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Iabal Singh Narang vs. Veeran Narang, (2012) 2 SCC 60.