V.K. Aggarwal vs Sh. Vijay Kumar and Others

Indermeet Kaur, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the ARCT dated 04.02.2006; the RCT had dismissed the application filed by the tenant/petitioner u/s 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) read with Order 21 Rule 99 of the CPC (Code); this application had been dismissed as a subsequent corollary to the dismissal of his application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlord-Vijay Kumar u/s 14(1) (a) (b) and (h) of the DRCA against the Respondents, namely, Smt. Shanta Soni and Sh. Tinu Soni (respondent Nos. 2 and 3); the contention of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was that they had, in fact, sub-tenanted these premises to the Petitioner i.e. to V.K. Aggarwal; decree of eviction had been passed in favour of the landlord Vijay Kumar on 15.11.1999. The Petitioner V.K. Aggarwal who was in possession of the suit premises was dispossessed on 15.10.2000. Contention of the Petitioner was that thereafter i.e. from the date of his dispossession, he had made efforts to contact his counsel and he was able to contact him but the necessary documents relating to the title of the property could not be collected by him. His contention is that he is an independent title holder in the suit property and is not a sub-tenant of Vijay Kumar.

The premises in dispute are property No. 1863/2254, Ward No. XV, Wazir Singh Street, Paharganj, New Delhi. The averments made in the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act filed before ARC have been perused. Primary ground is that the collection of documents could not be effected in time as the Petitioner did not material particulars. The ARCT as also the RCT had both correctly noted that no sufficient cause for was made for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal u/s 25 of the DRCA i.e. after about 80 days from the date of dispossession. The ARCT as also the RCT had noted that although no special period of limitation has been prescribed under the DRCA for filing an application u/s 25, yet guidelines have to be taken from the Limitation Act which is the statute governing all limitations and relying upon the Article 128 of Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act a period of 30 days was held to be the statutory period for assailing an order of dispossession from the property. In the present case admittedly, the Petitioner had been dispossessed on 15.10.2000; he had filed the application u/s 25 of the DRCA only on 05.01.2001. The courts below had correctly noted that no sufficient cause has been made for condonation of delay when admittedly Petitioner was out of the property on 15.10.2000, the period of 80 days in assailing that order remained unexplained. Vehement contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that this is a fit case for remand.

This Court is of the view that the order of the Trial Court holding that no ''sufficient cause'' has been made for condonation of delay suffers from no infirmity; further even assuming that this argument of the Petitioner is taken into account and the matter is remanded back, it would serve no purpose.

Record shows that the Petitioner is claiming his title through one Raj Kumar; his contention being that after a series of purchases, Raj Kumar had finally sold this property to the Petitioner who is a purchaser from Raj Kumar. This is the gist of his application u/s 25 of the DRCA and this fact finds mention in para 11. To controvert this submission, Learned Counsel for the Respondent has drawn attention of this Court to the orders of the Single Judge of the High Court passed on 11.12.2002 in Suit No. 1021/2011. Suit No. 1021/2001 was a suit filed by the said Raj Kumar against Vijay Kumar for declaration and possession. His contention was that the disputed premises are owned by him; he had sought an injunction against the Defendant (Vijay Kumar) from selling or alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. This suit was finally dismissed on 06.01.2004. No appeal has been filed against the said order. The order dated 06.01.2004 has thus attained finality. The necessary consequence is that the suit filed by Raj Kumar (person though whom the present Petitioner is claiming title) against Vijay Kumar (present landlord in the present petition) has been dismissed. Raj Kumar has not been able to establish any claim in the suit property. The present Petitioner i.e. V.K. Aggarwal is claiming his title only through Raj Kumar; his contention being that he had purchased the suit property from Raj Kumar. Since Raj Kumar himself has not been able to establish or lay any claim or title to the suit property, it is clear that even in the eventuality that the matter is remanded back to the trial court no useful purpose will be served as this defence now set up by the Petitioner of having purchased this property from Raj Kumar cannot be established.

Impugned order on no count suffers from any infirmity; petition is without merit; it is dismissed.