RAMESH CHAND SAHNI Vs. GEETA MADHOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicants/respondents are seeking review of the order of this Court in C.M. (M) No. 108/96 decided on 19th February, 1997.

(2.) The main grievance against the said order as expressed by the applicants are that non-applicant, petitioner in Civil Misc. (Main), concealed important and material facts from this Court. The present applicants were not aware of those facts which are concealed by the respondents herein because the applicants were not party to the recovery of rent suit. The facts which have been concealed by the respondents herein according to the applicants are that Smt. Bimla Rani, owner of the property bearing No. 113, Shankar Road Main Market, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, in the rent recovery suit proved through the hand-writing expert that documents had been forged by the present respondent. Report of the hand-writing expert was in favour of Smt. Bimla Rani and against the respondent herein. By the said report the hand-writing expert proved that signature and initials on rent receipts were of this respondent meaning that this respondent was a tenant of Smt. Bimla Rani. Secondly the late father of the respondent herein had filed a petition for fixation of standard rent under Section 9 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the D.R.C. Act). The said petition was filed much after the alleged agreement to sell dated 7th February, 1970. This shows that late father of the respondent, Shri Chuni Lal admitted himself to be the tenant of Smt. Bimla Rani. The hand-writing expert who submitted his report in civil suit has not been cross-examined as yet. These facts are material to prove that property was not agreed to be sold to the respondent. But the respondent was only tenant. Having not brought these facts to the notice of this Court, therefore, the order under review has been passed. It has caused great injustice to the applicants. Respondent herein obtained the impugned order by concealing these material facts which resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to the applicants these facts were not in their knowledge as they were not party to the petition under D.R.C. Act hence they acquired the knowledge of these facts during the pendency of this petition. Since these are new and important facts and no fresh evidence is required to be led hence applicants be allowed to urge the same. Because of these new facts matter requires readjudication. The facts were not in the knowledge of the applicants as they were not party in the suit, therefore, could not be brought to the notice of the Court earlier. Moreover, this Court ignored the fact that in a recovery of rent suit issues pertaining to the title could not have been framed. Only issues which could be framed were: Whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether the rent claimed was due against the tenant. No question of title could be determined in a suit for recovery of rent. Moreover, the suit for recovery of rent could not be treated as a lis-pendens. Hence the provision of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (in short the T.P. Act), were not attracted to the facts of this case. Neither the respondent herein nor his mother Kaushalya Devi filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 7th February, 1970, nor Kaushalya Devi or for that matter present respondent filed a suit of declaration of title of the property. That the agreement to sell itself does not create any title nor any right or interest in the property. The alleged agreement to sell having been cancelled by Smt. Bimla Rani, therefore, there was no question of framing any additional issue regarding title of the property to be determined. It is in this backdrop the applicants have sought review of the impugned order dated 19th February, 1997.

(3.) This application has been contested by the respondent on legal as well as factual grounds. Respondent has objected to the maintainability of such a petition. According to him the pre-requisite for the grant of such prayer is that new facts and/or evidence was not in the knowledge of the applicant. Such facts have been discovered during the pendency of the petition. But in the case in hand it is not applicants' case that new facts and/or evidence has been discovered suddenly. Even otherwise in order to grant review the Court has to ascertain whether the applicant could not discover new facts or evidence in spite of due diligence and exercise of care. Beside sufficient cause has to be shown to indicate as to why these facts could not be placed before the Court earlier. The respondent contended that the applicants have neither stated sufficient cause nor established that these new facts were not in their knowledge.