0

Karnataka High Court Overturns Order, Remands Case to Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge for Appellant to Present Real Estate Cash Transaction Evidence

Blog , , , , ,

Case Name: Sri Srikanth M N v. The Competent Authority 

Case No.: Miscellaneous First Appeal No.2982 Of 2024 

Dated: May 16, 2024 

Quorum:  Justice R Devdas and Justice J M Khazi 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The appellant is accused of being an employee of respondent No.2, Sri.Gurusarvabhauma Souharda Credit Co-operative Limited, and that he conducted a fictitious transaction and bought the subject immovable property in his name only to defraud the Bank’s depositors. Based on our careful consideration, if this is the allegation made against the appellant, he should be given the chance to demonstrate that he is not a benami purchaser of the immovable property and that he obtained the property through other means. 

The learned counsel representing respondent No. 1 argues that the appellant’s argument that the impugned order is an exparte order and should be set aside may not be true given that it is evident from the impugned order itself that notices were given to the appellant and that, in the event that the appellant failed to appear before the trial court, a paper publication was also made. Despite the notice being published in newspapers, the appellant did not appear before the trial court, and as a result, the impugned order was made.  

 ISSUES: 

The issue in this case is that the appellant failed to appear before the trial court despite being issued notices and having a notice published in newspapers. As a result of the appellant’s failure to appear, the impugned order was passed by the trial court. 

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The learned counsel representing respondent No. 1 argues that the appellant’s argument that the impugned order is an exparte order and should be set aside may not be true given that it is evident from the impugned order itself that notices were given to the appellant and that, in the event that the appellant failed to appear before the trial court, a paper publication was also made.  

It was also argyed that despite the notice being published in newspapers, the appellant did not appear before the trial court, and as a result, the impugned order was made. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that the appellant’s assertion—that the impugned order is an ex parte order and therefore should be set aside—is not accurate. According to the details of the impugned order, the trial court had issued multiple notices to the appellant. When the appellant failed to appear in response to these notices, the court took the additional step of issuing a notice via a newspaper publication to ensure the appellant was informed. Despite these efforts, the appellant did not appear before the trial court. Consequently, the court proceeded to pass the impugned order due to the appellant’s continued absence. 

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The court took into consideration the admitted fact that the appellant is accused of being an employee of Sri. Gurusarvabhauma Souharda Credit Co-operative Limited, that respondent No. 2 made a fictitious transaction, and that respondent No. 2 purchased the subject immovable property in the appellant’s name only with the intention of defrauding the Bank’s depositors.  

The cort futher held that if this is the allegation made against the appellant, we believe he should be given the chance to prove that he is not a benami purchaser of the immovable property and that he had his own sources to purchase the property. Therefore, we believe that the appellant should be granted a chance for a hearing.  

For that reason, the court also believed that the contested order needed to be overturned, and that the appellant should be allowed to present any evidence supporting his claim that he paid cash for the subject real estate and that the transaction had nothing to do with respondent No. 2 in this case. The case was remanded to the XCI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for KPIDFE cases, Bengaluru, for further consideration.  

 “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 Judgement reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora 

Click to view judgment.

0

Delhi HC declines settlement agreement stating lack of intent to avoid Arbitration; Sends dispute to Arbitration.

Blog , , , ,

CASE TITLE – M/S DHAWAN BOX SHEET CONTAINERS PVT. LTD v. M/S SHREYANSH HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.

CASE NUMBER – ARB.P. 1196/2023

DATED ON – 20.05.2024

QUORUM – Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing corrugated boxes and cartons. The respondent placed various orders upon the petitioner for the supply of corrugated boxes. The petitioner having been supplied the same issued various invoices from time to time. The petitioner’s plea is that there was outstanding due of Rs. 36,40,006/- for which the petitioner issued a legal demand notice dated 01.06.2023. The petitioner has filed the present petition stating therein that there is an outstanding of Rs. 36,40,006/-. The petitioner also stated that the respondent issued an email dated 22.05.2023 and requested the petitioner to settle the matter at the lesser rate on the coercive ground that the management and control of the company would soon be taken over by the Insolvency Resolution Professional as appointed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal. The petitioner also claimed to have sent legal demand notice dated 01.06.2023. The petitioner stated that the respondent had informed that the insolvency proceedings had been initiated against him by M/s Synergy Group and further shared a screenshot of the filing details. Therefore, to bring a quietus to the matter, the petitioner accepted the offer of the respondent vide consent letter dated 12.06.2023. However, later on it was revealed that no insolvency petition had been filed. The respondent submitted that the petitioner had been supplying bad quality of the goods and the respondent was forced to return the good to the tune of Rs. 10,23,117/-. It has been submitted that thereafter the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 12.06.2023 thereby deciding the terms of the payments to be to the petitioner after mutual discussion between the parties.

 

ISSUES

Whether the letter dated 12.06.2023 can be taken as a novation of agreement or settlement of dispute between the parties?

Whether the arbitration clause in the invoices is still enforceable given the settlement agreement?

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, prescribes the power of a judicial authority to refer parties to arbitration.

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, prescribes the appointment of arbitrators in an arbitration proceeding.

CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent coerced the petitioner into settling the matter by accepting part consideration and agreeing to receive the balance consideration proportionately on recovery of dues against whom the respondent has stated to have initiated recovery proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the respondent falsely informed the petitioner that proceedings under IBC had been initiated against him which was found to be false. The petitioner in these circumstances accepted the offer of the respondent vide consent letter dated 12.06.2023. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an arbitration clause in the invoices within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts. He also submitted that it is a settled proposition that an arbitration clause on the invoices can be taken into account for appointing an Arbitrator. It had further been stated that the plea taken by the respondent that the arbitration clause as contained in the invoices of the petitioner stood novated under the settlement as recorded in the document dated 12.06.2023 is liable to be rejected. It had been submitted that the document dated 12.06.2023 cannot obviate the arbitration clause in the invoice. The Learned counsel further submitted that it is a settled proposition that if an original contract remains in existence, for disputes in connection with issues of repudiation, frustration, breach, etc., the Arbitration Clause therein continues to operate for these purposes.

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

The Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had been supplying bad quality of the goods and the respondent was forced to return the goods to the tune of Rs. 10,23,117/-. It had been submitted that thereafter the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 12.06.2023 thereby deciding the terms of the payments to be to the petitioner after mutual discussion between the parties. He also submitted that the petitioner upon realizing the defects and quality issues in the goods sold by the Petitioner to the Respondent of its own volition agreed to settle the accounts amicably after discussions and deliberations with the Respondent. The Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after the settlement as recorded in the letter dated 12.06.2023, there was no live lis between the parties and therefore in the absence of any dispute, the matter cannot be referred to the arbitration. He further submitted that once the parties to any arbitration agreement enter into a settlement thereby discharging the original agreement, the jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be invoked. After placing reliance on multiple precedents, The Learned Counsel came up with the arguments that a) an arbitration clause contained in an agreement which is void ab initio cannot be enforced as the contract itself never legally came into existence. b) A validly executed contract can also be extinguished by a subsequent agreement between the parties. c) If the original contract remains in existence, for the purposes of disputes in connection with issues of repudiation, frustration, breach, etc., the arbitration clause contained therein continues to operate for those purposes. d)Where the new contract constitutes a wholesale novation of the original contract, the arbitration clause would also stand extinguished by virtue of the new agreement. The Learned counsel argued that though the scope of judicial intervention at the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is limited, yet, the matter can be referred only if there is a dispute between the parties. He further submitted that the petitioner having settled the dispute with the respondent, the matter cannot be referred to the learned Arbitrator.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was of the firm view that by no stretch of imagination the letter dated 12.06.2023 can be taken as the novation of an agreement or the settlement of the dispute between the parties as the document does not reveal at all that vide this document the dispute between the parties have been settled and there is no Live Lis between the parties. They further stated that while deciding such issues, the court has only to look at the prima facie view and the intention of the parties. In order to deny the arbitration, if the same is the preferred mode of resolution of dispute, there has to be clear intent of the parties, and stated that they do not consider that there is clear intent of the parties as reflected in the document dated 12.06.2023. The Hon’ble High Court disposed of the petition, with a few directions, stating that the disputes between the parties under the said agreement were now referred to the arbitral tribunal, and had also appointed an Arbitrator. It was also made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims on merits of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement

0

Delhi High Court Acknowledges Petitioner’s Compliance Efforts, Mandates Reassessment for CAPF Role Eligibility

Uncategorized , , , , , , , , ,

Case Name: Akshay Choudhary v. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors 

Case No.: W.P.(C) 5602/2024 

Dated: May 20, 2024 

Quorum:  Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice Ravinder Dudeja 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The facts of the case revolve around one Akshay Choudhary, the petitioner, has filed a writ petition contesting the findings of the Review Medical Examination Report, which deemed him ineligible because of a tattoo. After passing the written exam to become an Assistant Commandant in the CAPF, Choudhary had tattoo removal procedures performed, but his unhealed scar kept him from being considered fit. 

The petitioner, Akshay Choudhary, has filed a writ appeal to overturn the conclusions of the Review Medical Examination Report, which determined that his tattoo disqualifies him from the case. Even though Choudhary underwent tattoo removal surgery after clearing the written exam to become an Assistant Commandant in the CAPF, his unhealed scar prevented him from being deemed fit. 

Even though Choudhary underwent tattoo removal surgery after clearing the written exam to become an Assistant Commandant in the CAPF, his unhealed scar prevented him from being deemed fit. In an attempt to reverse the findings of the Review Medical Examination Report—which concluded that the petitioner, Akshay Choudhary, is ineligible for the case because of his tattoo—he has filed a writ appeal.  

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:  

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Central Armed Police Forces (‘CAPF’) had published an advertisement and examination notice on April 26, 2023, regarding the appointment to the position of Assistant Commandant (Group A). That the petitioner had surgery on December 8, 2023, to remove a tattoo that was etched on his right forearm.  

After passing the written exam, the petitioner was called by respondent No. 3/ ITBP on December 19, 2023, for the Physical Standard Test (PST), Physical Efficiency Test (PET), and Medical Standard Test (MST) as well as the Review Medical Examination (RME) at 39 Battalion, ITBP, NOIDA. There, he was found unfit due to a tattoo mark of “OM” that was engraved in Hindi on the inner anterior part of his right forearm.  

The learned counsel also contended that The petitioner applied for the Review Medical Examination (abbreviated “RME”) with diligence. Once more, the petitioner had a tattoo removal procedure on December 27, 2023.  

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The learned counsel of the respondents argued that the submissions made by Mr. Mehta, stating that the examination notice and advertisement issued by the respondents clearly stipulate that each candidate must meet all eligibility requirements in order to be accepted into the respondents’ Force. The advertisement further specifies that tattoos on conventional body sites, such as the inner aspect of the forearm, are only permitted on the left forearm—sooner than on the saluting limb or the dorsum of the hands.  

In his opinion, the petitioner’s case does not meet the eligibility requirements mentioned in the relevant advertisement because the tattoo is located on the front side of the right forearm. Apart from that, the medical situation must be seen on the day of the medical examination or RME, not four months later as requested by the petitioner in this instance.  

For this reason, the current petition must be denied. After hearing from the parties’ knowledgeable solicitors, the brief matter that needs to be addressed is whether the petitioner’s case was properly denied by the Medical Board or Review Medical Board.  

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The court determined that there was no tattoo following the procedure to remove it, and that the Tattoo Clause does not, on its face, require that a candidate’s scar from a tattoo removal be unhealthy or unhealed in order for the candidate to be disqualified. However, we believe that the Medical Board and Review Medical Board had a legitimate reason to review the scar from the procedure in order to make sure that the portion of the hand that is visible when saluting is clear in every way. In that sense, the Review Medical Board’s judgement might be supported.  

The judge decided that, but the reality still holds that the Review Medical Board ought not to have looked at the petitioner right away following a few days of surgery and ought to have provided enough time for the petitioner to guarantee that the scar heals, and then determine the petitioner’s suitability or unfitness based on the picture of the right forearm of the petitioner at ANNEXURE P-6, in addition to the the petitioner requested an opinion from an ANNEXURE skin expert P-7 on April 20, 2024, who stated that they could not observe any tattoo residue and two to three sessions would be required for full post-laser clearing. prima facie, hyperpigmentation suggests that the scar may have recovered. Therefore, in the exercise of its extraordinary authority, this Court 

The court, in finality, observed that In the event that the Medical Board rules in favour of the petitioner, the respondents will proceed with the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Commandant, provided that there are openings in the Group A grade of Assistant Commandant. If not, the petitioner will be considered to have lost the case. The re-examination process mentioned above must be finished as soon as feasible—six weeks from today is the upper limit—and any additional action that has to be taken must be done so as soon as practicable.  

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora 

Click to view judgment.

0

Appointment of Sole Arbitrator Granted Based on Valid Arbitration Agreement

blog, Delhi High Court , ,

Case title : Delhivery Limited vs Far Left Retail Private Limited

Case No. ARB.P 481/2024

Dated o: 17th May, 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, Delhivery Limited, the petitioner, initiated a petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. The petitioner, Delhivery Limited, is a logistics company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with registered addresses in New Delhi and Gurugram. On the other hand, the respondent, Far Left Retail Private Limited, is a listed company engaged in the business of home decor and gifting products, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, with a registered address in Mumbai, Maharashtra.

The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent arose from a Service Agreement dated June 17, 2022. Despite the agreement, the respondent failed to make payments towards the invoices raised by the petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Service Agreement.

In attempts to resolve the issue, the petitioner sent various email communications to the respondent between November 10, 2022, and January 24, 2023. Additionally, a Demand Notice was issued to the respondent on December 30, 2022, urging an amicable settlement of the dispute. However, the respondent did not respond satisfactorily to these communications nor did it make the required payments.

Further, the petitioner issued a Notice on October 27, 2023, in accordance with Clause 19 of the Service Agreement and Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Despite this, the respondent did not reply or make payments according to the terms of the Service Agreement.

Subsequently, the petitioner invoked arbitration under the Service Agreement by sending a Notice dated October 27, 2023. Despite the respondent admitting the arrears in various communications, it did not engage in the arbitration process nor respond to the petitioner’s attempts to resolve the dispute.

Although the respondent raised objections regarding the procedure and sufficiency of service, the court found that the petitioner had made sufficient efforts to settle the matter amicably before initiating arbitration, as evidenced by various emails and legal notices. Therefore, the court allowed the petition, requesting the Coordinator of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre to appoint an Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1996, for adjudication of the disputes between the parties.

ISSUES

  1. Did the petitioner (Delhivery Limited) follow the proper procedure as outlined in the Service Agreement for resolving the dispute?
  2. Was the service of the arbitration notice on the respondent proper?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act): This is the primary legal framework governing arbitration proceedings in India. The judgement specifically references:
  • Section 11(5) of the Act: This provision empowers the court to appoint an arbitrator when the parties cannot agree on one themselves.
  • Section 21 of the Act: This section deals with the commencement of arbitration proceedings.
  1. Companies Act, 1956: This act governs the incorporation and regulation of companies in India. The judgement mentions this act to identify the petitioner’s (Delhivery Limited) incorporation details.
  2. Companies Act, 2013: This is a newer act that governs the incorporation and regulation of companies in India. The judgement mentions this act to identify the respondent’s (Far Left Retail Private Limited) incorporation details.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor and Mr. Aviral Tripathi, Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents failed to make payments. The appellant, Delhivery Limited, entered into a Service Agreement with the respondent, Far Left Retail Private Limited, on 17.06.2022. However, the respondent failed to make payments towards the invoices raised by the appellant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Service Agreement. The appellant made numerous attempts to communicate with the respondent regarding the outstanding payments. Several email communications were sent to the respondent on various dates between 10.11.2022 and 24.01.2023. Additionally, a Demand Notice was issued on 30.12.2022, but the respondent still failed to settle the dispute and make payments as per the agreement. Subsequently, the appellant invoked the Arbitration clause under the Service Agreement by sending a Notice dated 27.10.2023 to the respondent. Despite admissions of arrears by the respondent in various communications dated 09.11.2022, 19.11.2022, and 05.12.2022, the appellant was left with no option but to file the present Petition seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.The appellant contends that it has diligently followed the procedures outlined in the Arbitration Clause of the Service Agreement. This includes making an endeavour for amicable settlement before initiating Arbitration proceedings. The appellant asserts that it has complied with the Arbitration Clause adequately.Insufficiency of Service Objection: The appellant acknowledges that the respondent has raised objections regarding the insufficiency of service. However, the appellant argues that such objections are to be addressed before the learned Arbitrator, as there is a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties. In summary, the appellant contends that the respondent’s failure to make payments, despite repeated attempts at communication and adherence to the Arbitration Clause, has left no alternative but to seek arbitration.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent raised objections regarding the procedural aspects of the arbitration clause. They argued that the petitioner did not follow the prescribed procedure of attempting an amicable settlement before initiating arbitration proceedings. The respondent also objected to the service rendered on behalf of the petitioner, claiming it was unsatisfactory. This objection likely pertains to the manner in which the petitioner served notices and communications related to the dispute. The respondent contended that despite the petitioner’s claim of making efforts for an amicable settlement before resorting to arbitration, they found the efforts insufficient or inadequate. The judgement mentions that the respondent has the liberty to contest the insufficiency of service before the learned Arbitrator, indicating their intention to address this issue in the arbitration proceedings. Overall, the respondent’s contentions revolve around procedural objections to the arbitration process, particularly regarding the attempted amicable settlement and the adequacy of service rendered by the petitioner. They maintain their position that the petitioner did not fulfil the necessary requirements before invoking arbitration and seek the opportunity to contest these issues before the Arbitrator.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court acknowledges the filing of the petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. The petitioner, Delhivery Limited, is identified along with its address and business activities. The respondent, Far Left Retail Private Limited, is also identified along with its address and business activities. It is mentioned that a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent concerning a Service Agreement dated 17.06.2022. The respondent allegedly failed to make payments according to the terms of the agreement, despite various communications from the petitioner and a demand notice. The petitioner invoked arbitration under the Service Agreement on 27.10.2023, after the respondent allegedly admitted to the arrears in previous communications. The petitioner was left with no option but to file the present petition due to the respondent’s failure to respond adequately. The petitioner’s counsel mentions receiving an advance reply and an application for condonation of delay from the respondent’s counsel, although these were not filed formally. The copy of the reply is submitted to the court for record. The respondent raised objections regarding the procedure outlined in the arbitration clause and the sufficiency of service. The court notes that despite various communications and legal notices, the respondent did not respond adequately. It concludes that the petitioner made sufficient efforts for an amicable settlement before initiating arbitration. The court considers the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and orders the appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It allows the parties to raise objections before the arbitrator and determines that the arbitration shall be conducted under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre within the High Court precinct. The fees of the arbitrator are to be fixed according to the Centre’s rules, and the arbitrator must make necessary disclosures as per the Act.The court concludes by disposing of the petition in the above terms, indicating the date and the judge who delivered the judgement.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgment

0

Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction Order in Landmark Rental Dispute: Lays down Implications for Property Owners and Tenants in Delhi

Blog , , , , ,

Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction Order in Landmark Rental Dispute: Lays down Implications for Property Owners and Tenants in Delhi 

Case Name: Nem Chand Jain v. Sanjay Kumar Jain & Anr 

Case No.: RC.REV. 405/2014 

Dated: May 13, 2024 

Quorum: Justice Girish Kathpalia 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The present respondents filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, claiming to be the owners of the shop Delhi. They claimed to be operating under the name M/s. Sagar Chand Jain and to be in the business of selling cards and stationery from tenanted premises in Delhi.  

Given that they don’t have access to any other reasonably acceptable commercial accommodations, they genuinely need the subject premises for their children. With the consent of the owners, who obtained the right to live by virtue of a will dated 11.03.1974, the first and upper floors of the property are being used as a godown. Previously, they were using them for residential purposes, but they later moved to a residential area in Sainik Farms, Delhi.  

They own two rooms and a veranda on the third story of the Chawri Bazar property, but they are unable to be used as a shop. They need the relevant premises for their daughter Sanjana to get a degree in Fine Arts so that she can launch her own wedding card design business, and for their sons Shantanu and Toran to operate their card and stationery business. They were also launching eviction cases against the tenants of the shops next to the subject premises because the subject premises would only partially satisfy their requirements.  

Later, stores were cut out of the property’s ground floor, and the municipal authorities gave each store a unique number so that they could all be a part of the bigger structure. The Will dated 11.03.1974 of their grandmother, which was also probated, gave the present respondents ownership of the entire larger land in Chawri Bazar as well as in Chhota Chhipiwara Khurd, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. In order to use the subject premises for their children’s legitimate economic needs, the petitioner now residing there may be forced to vacate.  

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER: 

The petitioner argued against the contested eviction decision on the grounds that the current respondents had hidden all relevant information about the property they owned and could have used for their children’s business. The petitioner/tenant’s learned counsel argued that the condition put forward by the respondents/landlords needs to be rejected as lacking validity because they disguised the entire area, including measures and the number of shops on each of their properties together with the tenants’ personal information. The argument was that the landlords/respondents had misrepresented the shops that were offered as godowns, hence their argument to that effect had to be denied.  

The learned counsel representing the petitioner/tenant relied on the ruling of a coordinate bench of this court in the Khem Chand vs. Arjun Jain, 2013 IX AD (Delhi) 89 case. They argued that the suitability and reasonableness of the alternate accommodation is a factual matter that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than as a general rule that the landlord is the best judge. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The contested eviction decision was backed by knowledgeable lawyers for the landlords/respondents, who argued that the current petition had any validity at all. The knowledgeable attorney representing the respondents/landlords guided me through opposing pleadings and supporting documentation to bolster his contention that the petitioner/tenant’s allegation of concealments is wholly untrue given that the respondents/landlords had explicitly revealed and elucidated every piece of property they owned.  

On behalf of the respondents/landlords, it was contended that not even the subject premises’ site plan was contested during cross-examination because it had been properly proven in evidence. The learned counsel representing the respondents/landlords cited the ruling of this court’s coordination bench in Mohd. Saleem v. Zaheer Ahmad, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1469, as evidence for his claims.  

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The court held that there should be exercise caution not to engage in a roving investigation that would transform the authority of superintendence into that of a regular first appeal, which is expressly prohibited by the legislature, while reviewing the Rent Controller’s records to ensure that the contested order was issued legitimately. 

Unless the factual findings recorded by the Rent Controller were so irrational that no Rent Controller would have recorded the same on the material available, it is not permissible for the High Court in such proceedings to reach a different conclusion.  

The court reviewed the record with consideration for the previously specified restricted parameters of this court’s particular jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25B of the Act. From the information above, it is clear that the parties do not dispute the existence of a legal relationship of tenancy or the respondents’/landlords’ ownership of the relevant premises.  

The challenge to the validity of the requirement established in light of the alternative accommodations offered by the respondents/landlords is centre to the current issue. All of the respondents’ children lack the necessary skills or inclination to operate a paper business, the current petitioner further claimed in their pleadings.  

During the court proceedings, as previously said, the primary focus of the petitioner’s/tenant’s knowledgeable legal representation was to reveal the extent to which the respondents/landlords had obscured the availability of alternative accommodations.  

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

Click to view judgment.

1 2