Full Judgment Text
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Decided on: 9 September, 2015
+ RC. REV. 479/2015 & CM 1888/2015 (delay)
RAM SHREE ..... Petitioner
Through: A.K Singhal, Advocate
versus
SANJEEV JAIN ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.18881/2015 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
RC. REV. 479/2015 & CM 18880/2015 (delay)
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner/revisionist against the order dated 01.06.2012 passed by
the Ld. Additional Rent Controller, North East District,
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 1 of 8
Karkardooma Court, Delhi by virtue of which the Ld. ARC
dismissed the petitioner’s eviction petition along with an
application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.
2. The petitioner in the application under S.5 of the Limitation’s Act
has sought condonation of the delay of 1068 days in filing the
present revision petition. It has been averred by the petitioner in the
said application that the delay in filing is on account of ill health of
the revisionist who suffered from paralysis and other diseases. It is
further stated that the petitioner was advised to file an appeal which
was filed on 28.10.2014. This appeal was withdrawn with liberty to
approach the appropriate forum, on 09.07.2015 as the same was not
maintainable. The certified copy of the order dated 01.06.2012 and
09.07.2015 was received on 22.07.2015. It has been stated in the
application u/s. 5 of the Act that the delay in filing the revision
petition is neither deliberate nor intentional and it is on account of
the wrong advice and under the impression that the petitioner being
the landlady can file the revision at any time whenever a fresh
bonafide need may arise. Therefore in the light of the aforesaid
facts it is prayed that the delay may be condoned.
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 2 of 8
3. Before proceeding further the brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner/landlord is the owner of the property bearing no. 27/5-C,
(New No. E 1168/A), Main Road, Babarpur, Shahadara, Delhi-
110032. The respondent is a tenant under the petitioner since the
year 1985 in respect of one shop (tenanted premises). The
petitioner had alleged in the eviction petition that the respondent
had sub-let the tenanted premises without the consent and
permission of petitioner and started business at Pocket-E, 158-A,
G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi-92. It was further averred that the family of
the petitioner consists of herself, her husband, two sons and two
daughters who all are married. The petitioner had sought
possession of the tenanted premises on the grounds that the said
premise are required for the settlement of his son namely Pramod
Sharma who is a civil contractor and he desires to open his office
and godown in the tenanted premises.
4. On merits it is the case of the petitioner that the learned trial court
failed to consider the arguments of the petitioner and the evidence
adduced by him with respect to the ownership of the tenanted
premise especially when in separate proceedings before this court
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 3 of 8
the respondent had acknowledged the landlord-tenant relationship
and the same is a matter of judicial record. It is further stated that
even otherwise on payment of rent to the petitioner the respondent
has acknowledged the petitioner as the landlord and by virtue of
the bar u/s 116 of the Evidence Act the respondent cannot be
allowed to take a contrary stand. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has averred that it is settled law that in an eviction
petition u/s 14(1)(e) of the Act, the petitioner/landlord does not
need to prove an absolute title but only needs to establish that he
has a better title than the tenant.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
averments made in the application for condonation of delay. The
reasons offered on account of which the delay has been caused do
not show the bona fides of the appellant in preferring the appeal.
As a matter of fact, the conduct of the appellant is full of gross
negligence. This is on account of the fact that no material
information or evidence has been filed to support the reasons stated
in the said applications. The petitioner has claimed respite on
account of ill health but has not produced even a single medical bill
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 4 of 8
or doctors report to support his case. It is pertinent to note that the
petitioner filed the appeal also with considerable delay. The
petitioner has stated that she acted under the wrong advice but the
same seems to be a far-fetched theory and is more like an
afterthought, in the absence of any evidence.
6. The petitioner has further stated in the said application, that she
was of the view that she will pursue her legal remedies as and
when fresh bonafide requirement arises. This argument holds no
water on account of the fact that no new ground has been raised.
Further no application for leading any new evidence has been
placed on record to show that any new facts have come to light.
7. The act of the petitioner clearly shows that there was a lack of
seriousness in pursuing legal remedies that might be available to
her. It clearly flows from the aforesaid that there was gross
negligence on the part of the petitioner in prosecuting the matter.
8. Section 5 of the Limitation Act clearly lays down that before the
delay is condoned, it must be shown that there is a ‘sufficient
cause’ for the same and the ‘sufficient cause’ which has been
interpreted by the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs.
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 5 of 8
Management Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and
Others (2014) 2 SCC (LS) 595 is a cause which is beyond the
human control. The Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid
judgment very categorically stated that although the words
“sufficient cause” must be interpreted with a liberal, justice
oriented, pragmatic and non-pedantic approach but at the same
time the bonafides of the applicant seeking condonation of delay
must be made out. It was further held that the increasing tendency
to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical
propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner and requires to
be curbed.
9. In the instant case prima facie I am not convinced that any cogent
reason has been given by the appellant in the application which
may constitute sufficient cause in the eyes of law.
10. It is such like litigants who have clogged the arteries of justice
which has resulted in piling up of cases in courts and consequently,
not only the number of pending cases swells but even the day to
day hearing of cases gets affected. Further the attention of the court
gets diminished in matters that require its attention.
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 6 of 8
11. “ Vigilantibus Et Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt” is a settled
principle of law i.e the law assists those that are vigilant with their
rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. Merely because the
revisionist/petitioner has woken up belatedly to file the present
revision without showing any sufficient cause does not entitle the
revisionist to disturb a finding which has been returned by the Trial
Court more than three years back.
12. Further even on merits, it is evident from a perusal of the impugned
order that the petitioner/revisionist miserably failed to establish his
case before the trial court. It was alleged therein that the owner of
the premise was one Puran Chand and the same was proved on
record but no evidence to rebut the same was adduced by the
petitioner herein. Further there are discrepancies in the statement
made by the petitioner and PW-2 with respect to the job profile of
PW-2 casting doubts on the alleged bonafide requirement of the
petitioner. It has been recorded by the trial court on a perusal of
the photographs of the tenanted premise placed on record by the
respondent herein that the tenanted premise consists of four shops
and not two as has been contented by the petitioner. The petitioner
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 7 of 8
failed to substantiate his averments with cogent evidence.
Therefore even otherwise on merits the petitioner has failed to
make out a case.
13. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
Resultantly the revision is dismissed as barred by limitation.
14. Pending application stands disposed off.
V.K. SHALI, J.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2015
AD
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 8 of 8
th
Decided on: 9 September, 2015
+ RC. REV. 479/2015 & CM 1888/2015 (delay)
RAM SHREE ..... Petitioner
Through: A.K Singhal, Advocate
versus
SANJEEV JAIN ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.18881/2015 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
RC. REV. 479/2015 & CM 18880/2015 (delay)
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner/revisionist against the order dated 01.06.2012 passed by
the Ld. Additional Rent Controller, North East District,
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 1 of 8
Karkardooma Court, Delhi by virtue of which the Ld. ARC
dismissed the petitioner’s eviction petition along with an
application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.
2. The petitioner in the application under S.5 of the Limitation’s Act
has sought condonation of the delay of 1068 days in filing the
present revision petition. It has been averred by the petitioner in the
said application that the delay in filing is on account of ill health of
the revisionist who suffered from paralysis and other diseases. It is
further stated that the petitioner was advised to file an appeal which
was filed on 28.10.2014. This appeal was withdrawn with liberty to
approach the appropriate forum, on 09.07.2015 as the same was not
maintainable. The certified copy of the order dated 01.06.2012 and
09.07.2015 was received on 22.07.2015. It has been stated in the
application u/s. 5 of the Act that the delay in filing the revision
petition is neither deliberate nor intentional and it is on account of
the wrong advice and under the impression that the petitioner being
the landlady can file the revision at any time whenever a fresh
bonafide need may arise. Therefore in the light of the aforesaid
facts it is prayed that the delay may be condoned.
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 2 of 8
3. Before proceeding further the brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner/landlord is the owner of the property bearing no. 27/5-C,
(New No. E 1168/A), Main Road, Babarpur, Shahadara, Delhi-
110032. The respondent is a tenant under the petitioner since the
year 1985 in respect of one shop (tenanted premises). The
petitioner had alleged in the eviction petition that the respondent
had sub-let the tenanted premises without the consent and
permission of petitioner and started business at Pocket-E, 158-A,
G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi-92. It was further averred that the family of
the petitioner consists of herself, her husband, two sons and two
daughters who all are married. The petitioner had sought
possession of the tenanted premises on the grounds that the said
premise are required for the settlement of his son namely Pramod
Sharma who is a civil contractor and he desires to open his office
and godown in the tenanted premises.
4. On merits it is the case of the petitioner that the learned trial court
failed to consider the arguments of the petitioner and the evidence
adduced by him with respect to the ownership of the tenanted
premise especially when in separate proceedings before this court
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 3 of 8
the respondent had acknowledged the landlord-tenant relationship
and the same is a matter of judicial record. It is further stated that
even otherwise on payment of rent to the petitioner the respondent
has acknowledged the petitioner as the landlord and by virtue of
the bar u/s 116 of the Evidence Act the respondent cannot be
allowed to take a contrary stand. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has averred that it is settled law that in an eviction
petition u/s 14(1)(e) of the Act, the petitioner/landlord does not
need to prove an absolute title but only needs to establish that he
has a better title than the tenant.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
averments made in the application for condonation of delay. The
reasons offered on account of which the delay has been caused do
not show the bona fides of the appellant in preferring the appeal.
As a matter of fact, the conduct of the appellant is full of gross
negligence. This is on account of the fact that no material
information or evidence has been filed to support the reasons stated
in the said applications. The petitioner has claimed respite on
account of ill health but has not produced even a single medical bill
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 4 of 8
or doctors report to support his case. It is pertinent to note that the
petitioner filed the appeal also with considerable delay. The
petitioner has stated that she acted under the wrong advice but the
same seems to be a far-fetched theory and is more like an
afterthought, in the absence of any evidence.
6. The petitioner has further stated in the said application, that she
was of the view that she will pursue her legal remedies as and
when fresh bonafide requirement arises. This argument holds no
water on account of the fact that no new ground has been raised.
Further no application for leading any new evidence has been
placed on record to show that any new facts have come to light.
7. The act of the petitioner clearly shows that there was a lack of
seriousness in pursuing legal remedies that might be available to
her. It clearly flows from the aforesaid that there was gross
negligence on the part of the petitioner in prosecuting the matter.
8. Section 5 of the Limitation Act clearly lays down that before the
delay is condoned, it must be shown that there is a ‘sufficient
cause’ for the same and the ‘sufficient cause’ which has been
interpreted by the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs.
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 5 of 8
Management Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and
Others (2014) 2 SCC (LS) 595 is a cause which is beyond the
human control. The Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid
judgment very categorically stated that although the words
“sufficient cause” must be interpreted with a liberal, justice
oriented, pragmatic and non-pedantic approach but at the same
time the bonafides of the applicant seeking condonation of delay
must be made out. It was further held that the increasing tendency
to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical
propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner and requires to
be curbed.
9. In the instant case prima facie I am not convinced that any cogent
reason has been given by the appellant in the application which
may constitute sufficient cause in the eyes of law.
10. It is such like litigants who have clogged the arteries of justice
which has resulted in piling up of cases in courts and consequently,
not only the number of pending cases swells but even the day to
day hearing of cases gets affected. Further the attention of the court
gets diminished in matters that require its attention.
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 6 of 8
11. “ Vigilantibus Et Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt” is a settled
principle of law i.e the law assists those that are vigilant with their
rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. Merely because the
revisionist/petitioner has woken up belatedly to file the present
revision without showing any sufficient cause does not entitle the
revisionist to disturb a finding which has been returned by the Trial
Court more than three years back.
12. Further even on merits, it is evident from a perusal of the impugned
order that the petitioner/revisionist miserably failed to establish his
case before the trial court. It was alleged therein that the owner of
the premise was one Puran Chand and the same was proved on
record but no evidence to rebut the same was adduced by the
petitioner herein. Further there are discrepancies in the statement
made by the petitioner and PW-2 with respect to the job profile of
PW-2 casting doubts on the alleged bonafide requirement of the
petitioner. It has been recorded by the trial court on a perusal of
the photographs of the tenanted premise placed on record by the
respondent herein that the tenanted premise consists of four shops
and not two as has been contented by the petitioner. The petitioner
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 7 of 8
failed to substantiate his averments with cogent evidence.
Therefore even otherwise on merits the petitioner has failed to
make out a case.
13. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
Resultantly the revision is dismissed as barred by limitation.
14. Pending application stands disposed off.
V.K. SHALI, J.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2015
AD
Rec. Rev. No.479/2015 Page 8 of 8