Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 151 (DEL)

SUNDER LAL v. SHAM LAL

1987-03-20

SUNANDA BHANDARE

body1987
Sunanda Bhandare,j. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhidated 23/09/1986 whereby the evidencof the petitioner herein wasclosed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner had taken the first floor of property no. 5694-5, Galino. 3, New Chandrawal,sabjimandi, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. 00. The respondent filed an eviction petition under Sec. 14 (1) (e)read with Sec. 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking the eviction of the petitioner fromthe said premises on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The petitioner s application for leave to defend was granted and accordingly the petitioner was to lead evidence in support of the contention that the respondent didnot require the premises in question for his bona fide personal need. Duringthe pendency of the eviction petition, the respondent moved an applicationunder Sec. 15 (2) of ehe Delhi Rent Control Act which was granted and sincethe petitioner defaulted in complying with that order, the Additional Rentcontroller struck off the defence of the petitioner. An appeal was filed by thepetitioner against that order before the Rent Control Tribunal which was alsodismissed on 6/07/1985. The petitioner filed a second appeal in this Courtwhich was allowed on 18/02/1986 and the order of the Additional Rentcontroller striking out the defence was set aside and the case was remandedback to the Additional Rent Controller to decide the same according to law. After the remand, the petitioner was to produce his evidence. He, therefore,made an application for summoning the witnesses from E. S. I, office, Rationingoffice and House-tax Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Thepetitioner accordingly deposited the diet money and process fee. However, thewitnesses did not appear on the date fixed by the Additional Rent Controller. The Additional Rent Controller, therefore, issued D. O. letters to these witnesseson 12-8-86 asking them to appear before the Court on 23/09/1986. The petitioner also moved another application on 11/08/1986 for summoning these witnesses and again deposited diet money and process fee. Theadditional Rent Controller summoned these witnesses for 23/09/1986. Since none of these witnesses appeared on 23/09/1986, the impugnedorder came to be passed. The petitioner also moved another application on 11/08/1986 for summoning these witnesses and again deposited diet money and process fee. Theadditional Rent Controller summoned these witnesses for 23/09/1986. Since none of these witnesses appeared on 23/09/1986, the impugnedorder came to be passed. ( 3 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that theadditional Rent Controller had not considered the circumstances why theseofficial witnesses could not appear on the given date and without consideringthe relevant facts in this regard, the evidence of the petitioner was closed. Learned counsel submitted that inadvertently on the summons as well as on theapplication the date was wrongly mentioned as 21/09/1986 instead of 23/09/1986 and that is why the witnesses did not appear on 2 3/09/1986. Learned counsel submitted that all the three witnesses areofficial witnesses and the petitioner having deposited the diet money and processfee, he could not be held responsible for non-appearance of these witnesses. Learned counsel prayed that one final opportunity be given to the petitionerto summon these three witnesses and the petitioner will serve these witnessesdasti for any date to be fixed by the Additional Rent Controller. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the petitioner isdeliberately delaying the proceedings. This Court vide order dated 1 8/02/1986 had directed the Additional Rent Controller to dispose of thecase within one month from the date of that order and inspite of that the petitioner has not yet concluded the evidence. ( 5 ) FROM the perusal of the order sheet, it appears that after the case wasremanded back to the trial court, the petitioner examined himself and movedthe application for summoning the three official witnesses. The trial court considered the relevance of these three witnesses and not only directed summons toissue to these witnesses but also sent D. O. letters asking these witnesses toappear before the court. If these witnesses had not appeared inspite of serviceof summons, it was open to the trial court to take action against these witnessesfor non-appearance inspite of service of summons. However, it appears in thepresent case, the trial court has not considered the reason why these witnessesdid not appear on the specified dates. If these witnesses had not appeared inspite of serviceof summons, it was open to the trial court to take action against these witnessesfor non-appearance inspite of service of summons. However, it appears in thepresent case, the trial court has not considered the reason why these witnessesdid not appear on the specified dates. The trial court also did not considerwhether the petitioner was responsible for the non-appearance of these witnesses ( 6 ) HAVING considered the facts and circumstances in my opinion, sincethe trial court had itself considered it necessary to issue D. O. letters to thesewitnesses before closing the evidence of the petitioner, the trial court ought tohave first considered whether action should be taken against these witnesses fornon-appearance as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure and if it was foundthat the petitioner was responsible for the non-appearance of the witnesses, itshould have considered whether the evidence of the petitioner should be closed. Since from the record, it appears that these witnesses did not appear on23-9-1986 because on the summons and on the application a wrong date wasgiven, it was necessary to ascertain whether this mistake was genuine and bonafide or deliberate. The trial court has not considered this aspect at all. I findthat on the previous occasion, the witnesses could not be examined for no faultof the petitioner. The petitioner had also given the correct date on thesummons and deposited the diet money in time on the previous occasion. Theerror in recording the date on the second occasion therefore, appears to be bonafide. Moreover, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has now made astatement that if one more opportunity is given to examine these witnesses, thepetitioner will have the summons served Dasti, in my opinion, it is in theinterest of justice that one more opportunity should be given to the petitionerto have these three witnesses summoned. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 23/09/1986 is set aside. The Additional Rent Controller is directed to summon thethree witnesses mentioned in the application of the petitioner annexed asannexure-A to this petition for any one date. The service on these witnesseswill be effected Dasti by the petitioner himself. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 23/09/1986 is set aside. The Additional Rent Controller is directed to summon thethree witnesses mentioned in the application of the petitioner annexed asannexure-A to this petition for any one date. The service on these witnesseswill be effected Dasti by the petitioner himself. The Additional Rent Controlleris further directed to give a date for examination of these witnesses on any dateconvenient to it in the month of April 1987 and to dispose of the case, according to law, within two months from today. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to serve the summons on these witnesses on the date given by thetrial court, the evidence of the petitioner will be closed and the case will bedecided within two months from today as directed. The parties will appearbefore the Additional Rent Controller on 26/03/1987 for appropriatedirections in that regard. Trial Court record be sent down immediately throughspecial Messenger. No costs.