Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation vs UOI and Another

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The petition impugns the letter dated 8th/17th May, 2002 of the Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India to the Respondent No. 2 M/s Shrishti Properties Pvt. Ltd. informing the Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner being a State-owned concern of the Royal Nepal Government and being an entity, can sue and be sued and the matters concerning, in particular, rent/lease etc. are exempted from Central Government''s permission u/s 86 of Code of Civil Procedure. The petition also impugns the institution by the Respondent No. 2 on the basis of the said letter of a petition for eviction of the Petitioner from Premises No. 44, Janpath, New Delhi under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Petitioner contends that it enjoys the protection of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Notice of the petition was issued. Upon the counsel for the petition citing the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation v. Arun Jain 149 (2008) DLT 505 vide ex parte order dated 4th March, 2011 the operation of the order dated 8th/17th May, 2002 stayed. Vide subsequent ex parte order dated 5th March, 2011, the eviction of the Petitioner in pursuance to the eviction order passed in eviction petition aforesaid, also stayed.

The Respondent No. 2 upon being served with the notice of the petition and the ex parte order, applied for vacation of the interim order and thereafter for early hearing. Though advance notice of the said applications was served on the counsel for the Petitioner but the counsel for the Petitioner failed to appear forcing notice of the applications to be issued.

Now when the notice has been served, the counsel for the Petitioner appears and first seeks an adjournment on the ground that the senior counsel engaged is not available today. However the non-availability of the senior counsel cannot be a ground for adjournment particularly when the Petitioner after obtaining interim order from this Court has chosen to play hide and seek.

The counsel for the Petitioner next states that the revision petition filed by the Petitioner against the order of eviction is listed next before this Court on 1st November, 2011 and this petition be taken up thereafter.

However the same is also no ground for adjournment inasmuch as the two are separate proceedings. Rather, the Petitioner has in these proceedings obtained stay of his eviction. The counsel for the Respondent No. 2 also states that there is no stay of the eviction order in the revision petition.

The matter otherwise is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in Ethiopian Airlines Vs. Ganesh Narain Saboo, has in para 58 thereof in the context of the fora under the Consumer Protection Act held that the provisions of Section 86 of the CPC are not applicable to the proceedings before those fora. The counsel for the Respondent No. 2 points out that Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 considered by the Apex Court is in pari materia to Section 36(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Apex Court in para 70 of the said judgment has also held the provisions of Section 86 to be not applicable to entities such as the Petitioner.

In the light of the said judgment of the Apex Court, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation (supra) on the basis whereof notice of this petition was got issued, is no longer good law.

The counsel for the Petitioner at this stage seeks to withdraw the petition and only seeks stay of eviction till 1st November, 2011.

The counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has been heard on the aforesaid aspect.

Considering that the revision petition is listed on 1st November, 2011, while dismissing the petition as withdrawn, it is directed that the Petitioner be not evicted in pursuance to the eviction order aforesaid till 1st November, 2011.

It is however made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the eviction order and that even if the revision petition is not heard for any reason on 1st November, 2011, the protection granted by this order shall not be deemed to extend any further.

No order as to costs.