Delhi High Court
Munni Devi vs M/S Olive Exim Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. & Ors. on 18 December, 2024
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18.12.2024
+ RC.REV. 294/2024
MUNNI DEVI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nishant Mandal, Mr. Jitendra
Thakur, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Shukla, Mr.
Rahul Dev and Mr. Raman Raj
Gangwar, Advocates.
versus
M/S OLIVE EXIM PVT. LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ankur Mahindro, Mr. Shubham
Aggarwal, Mr. Soumil Gonsalves and
Ms. Vishali Sivagnanam, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
CM APPL. 62704/2024 [Delay in filing the Petition]
1. This is an Application seeking condonation of delay of 55 days in
filing the present Petition.
2. For the reasons stated in the Application, the delay is condoned.
3. The Application stands disposed of.
RC.REV. 294/2024, CM APPL. 62703/2024 [Additional documents], CM
APPL. 62705/2024 [Stay], CM APPL. 74359/2024 [For placing additional
document on record] & CM APPL. 74358/2024[Stay]
4. The present Petition has been filed impugning an Order dated
16.04.2024 passed by the learned SCJ cum RC (Central District), Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi by which leave to defend/contest Application filed by the
Petitioner/tenant was dismissed. The parties have been briefly heard in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 294/2024 Page 1 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:25.12.2024
15:45:33
matter.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant has raised two contentions.
In the first instance, he submits that the provision to run/construct a hotel or
as was the bona fide need placed on record by the Respondents/landlords in
the Eviction Petition, is not present in the Articles of Association and
Memorandum of Association [hereinafter referred to as “MoA”] of the
Respondent/company and thus, the need of the Respondent/company is not
bona fide. In addition, it is contended that the Respondent/company “is
barred by law from filing the present Petition.” However, the
Petitioner/tenant has been unable to show which law the
Respondent/company is barred by law to file the Petition. Learned Counsel
for the Petitioner/tenant has also drawn the attention of the Court to
paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the application for Leave to Defend in this
regard, to submit that triable issues were raised.
6. During the course of arguments, in view of the objections raised by
the Petitioner/tenant, learned Counsel for the Respondents/landlords has
handed over a compilation of documents which includes the amended
Memorandum of Association of the Respondent/company. The Petitioner
has also placed on record a Memorandum of Association of the
Respondent/company before this Court. However, it is admitted by the
Petitioner/tenant that this is a new document which was not placed before
the learned Trial Court.
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Company has submitted that the
Court in an Eviction Petition is required to examine three aspects in a
Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 294/2024 Page 2 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:25.12.2024
15:45:33
first instance, the relationship of landlord-tenant/ownership of the subject
premises. Secondly, the bona fide need coupled with alternate suitable
accommodation, as the third ingredient.
8. It is contended that so far as the availability of alternate suitable
accommodation is concerned, the Petitioner/tenant in his Affidavit filed
along with the leave to defend in Paragraph 10 has set out that the property
bearing 2517, Nalwa Gali, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, Delhi, is available,
when in fact this is the subject premises. Secondly, he submits that so far as
the bona fide need is concerned, he seeks to rely upon Clause 7 of the MoA
of the Respondent/company wherein the Respondent/company amongst its
main objects, also has an object to take over/construct houses, hotels, guest
houses, etc. across the country and abroad. The relevant extract of Paragraph
7 of the MoA is below:
“7. To establish, conduct, manage, takeover, construct, acquire,
purchase, sell, lease, rent, promote, develop and run holiday resorts,
boarding and lodging houses, hotels, restaurants, cafes, resorts,
vacation resorts, villas, commercial and residential buildings,
warehouses, shared workplaces, castles, inns, houses, motels, rest
houses, guest houses, cottages, holiday camps, spas, health
rejuvenation centres, housekeepers, clubs, breweries, pubs, bars,
swimming pool and other facilities, accommodations of all
descriptions across the country and abroad. To carry on the business
of providing food, drink, entertainment, accommodation and other
facilities for customers, guests and general public, act as caterers,
event planners.”
9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents/landlords thus submits that this
objection raised by the Petitioner/tenant is without any merit.
10. On the aspect of the challenge the landlord-tenant
relationship/ownership of the Respondent, learned Counsel for the
Respondents/landlords draws the attention of the Court to the discussion in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 294/2024 Page 3 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:25.12.2024
15:45:33
the Impugned Order, more specifically Paragraphs 19-22 of the Impugned
Order to submit that the Petitioner/tenant has already admitted during the
arguments on leave to defend, as is recorded by the learned Trial Court that
the Petitioner/tenant is tendering rent to Respondents/landlords. It is thus
contended that based on this admission, the learned Trial Court found that
jural relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and thus, there is no
triable issue qua this aspect.
11. On the aspect of ownership, learned Counsel for the
Respondents/landlords submit that it is a settled law that all that a landlord is
required to show is that he has a better title than the tenant and that the
Respondent/landlord is relying on a sale deed dated 06.08.2010 executed in
favour of the Respondents/landlords in support of their title.
12. The learned Trial Court found that although contention was raised by
the Petitioner/tenant regarding the bona fide need of the
Respondent/company, there was no document placed on record by the
Petitioner/tenant in support thereof. The learned Trial Court analysed this
objection and held that there is no impediment for a company to start a new
business. Reliance is also being placed by the learned Counsel for the
Respondent on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in Tilak Raj Chadha v.
Vijay Kumar Arora1 to submit that a company at any point can commence a
new business.
13. The Supreme Court Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua2 has held that
the jurisdiction of this Court is only revisionary in nature and limited in
1
MANU/DE/3604/2016
2
(2022) 6 SCC 30
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 294/2024 Page 4 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:25.12.2024
15:45:33
scope. The Supreme Court while interpreting the intendment of the
legislature in removing two stages of Appeal that were earlier provided in
the said Act has held that this is a conscious omission. The High Court is not
expected to substitute and supplant its view with that of the learned Trial
Court, its only role is to satisfy itself on the process adopted. Thus, the scope
of revisionary jurisdiction of this Court has been limited to examine if there
is an error apparent on the fact of the record or absence of any adjudication
by the learned Trial Court, and it is only then should the High Court
interfere. The Supreme Court has also cautioned from converting the power
of superintendence into that of a regular first Appeal under revisionary
jurisdiction. The relevant extract of the Abid-ul-Islam case is as follows:
“Scope of revision
“22. We are, in fact, more concerned with the scope and ambit of the
proviso to Section 25-B(8). The proviso creates a distinct and
unequivocal embargo by not providing an appeal against the order
passed by the learned Rent Controller over an application filed under
sub-section (5). The intendment of the legislature is very clear, which
is to remove the appellate remedy and thereafter, a further second
appeal. It is a clear omission that is done by the legislature
consciously through a covenant removing the right of two stages of
appeals.
23. The proviso to Section 25-B(8) gives the High Court exclusive
power of revision against an order of the learned Rent Controller,
being in the nature of superintendence over an inferior court on the
decision-making process, inclusive of procedural compliance. Thus,
the High Court is not expected to substitute and supplant its views
with that of the trial court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction. Its
role is to satisfy itself on the process adopted. The scope of
interference by the High Court is very restrictive and except in cases
where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which
would only mean that in the absence of any adjudication per se, the
High Court should not venture to disturb such a decision. There is no
need for holding a roving inquiry in such matters which would
otherwise amount to converting the power of superintendence into
that of a regular first appeal, an act, totally forbidden by theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 294/2024 Page 5 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:25.12.2024
15:45:33
legislature.
xxx
25. The aforesaid decision has been recently considered and approved
by this Court in Mohd. Inam v. Sanjay Kumar Singhal [Mohd.
Inam v. Sanjay Kumar Singhal, (2020) 7 SCC 327 : (2020) 4 SCC
(Civ) 107] : (SCC pp. 340-41, paras 22-23)
“22. This Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. [Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8
SCC 119] had an occasion to consider the scope of proviso to
Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This Court
found, that though the word “revision” was not employed in the
said proviso, from the language used therein, the legislative
intent was clear that the power conferred was revisional power.
This Court observed thus : (SCC p. 124, para 11)
’11. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in the present
case has reassessed and reappraised the evidence afresh to
reach a different finding as though it was exercising appellate
jurisdiction. No doubt even while exercising revisional
jurisdiction, a reappraisal of evidence can be made, but that
should be for the limited purpose to ascertain whether the
conclusion arrived at by the fact-finding court is wholly
unreasonable.’
It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that the High
Court while exercising the revisional powers under the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 though could not reassess and
reappraise the evidence, as if it was exercising appellate
jurisdiction, however, it was empowered to reappraise the
evidence for the limited purpose so as to ascertain whether the
conclusion arrived at by the fact-finding court is wholly
unreasonable.”
[Emphasis supplied]
14. This Court has examined the challenge of the Petitioner/tenant. The
leave to defend Application filed by the Petitioner/tenant before the learned
Trial Court raises several issues, including adverse/hostile possession of the
subject premises. An issue is also raised that the property belongs to Delhi
Development Authority and the Petitioner/tenant has also gone to the extent
of saying that the property was earlier used for keeping “the Britisher’s
horses” in Affidavit filed with Leave to Defend Application. However, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 294/2024 Page 6 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:25.12.2024
15:45:33
examination of all these contentions raised in the leave to defend is not
necessary to be undertaken by this Court since they have not been supported
by any documents.
15. In any event and as stated above, the examination in revisionary
jurisdiction is limited to an examination of the Impugned Order. The learned
Trial Court has given a finding based on the documents filed as well as on
the factum of admission by the Petitioner/tenant of the payment of rent by
the Petitioner/tenant to the Respondents/landlords by cheque in the sum of
Rs.1183/-. The Petitioner/tenant has also not claimed ownership of the
subject premises.
16. On a query being put to learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant, on
instructions he submits that the Petitioner/tenant is not the owner of the
subject premises. The relationship of landlord-tenant being admitted and the
Respondents/landlords having placed on record a registered sale deed, the
learned Trial Court gave a finding in favour of the Respondents/landlords.
This Court finds no reason to interdict the said finding being in accordance
with law.
17. On the aspect of bona fide need, as reproduced above, the MoA of the
company does give the Respondent/company authority to set up hotels,
guest houses, etc. The challenge raised by the Petitioner/tenant on the aspect
of the fact that the earlier MoA of the Company did not allow it, is without
merit. There is no bar on a Company amending its Articles/Memo of
Association at any point in time. Section 13 and 14 of the Companies Act,
2013 provides that company may alter the provisions of its Articles/Memo
of Association provided the procedure as set out is complied with. Thus, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 294/2024 Page 7 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:25.12.2024
15:45:33
challenge on this aspect is without merit as well. On the alternate suitable
accommodation availability, no document, record or averment has been
made by the Petitioner/tenant, as is also noticed above.
18. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.B. Watts v. Vipin
Kalra3, has held that what will be examined as is the documents and
averments which form part of the Application for leave to defend and no
examination beyond that is requisite. The relevant extract is set out below:
“27. It is trite law that the tenant cannot take new pleas beyond those taken
in the leave to defend application as the amendments would have the effect
of extending the time to file the leave to defend application which is not
permissible unless they are subsequent events which are also required to be
considered continuously.”
19. In view of the aforegoing discussions, this Court finds no infirmity
with the Impugned Order.
20. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant submits that if
some additional time could be granted in view of the fact that the
Petitioner/tenant is a senior citizen. The Petitioner/tenant, on instructions
from the son of the Petitioner, who is physically present in the Court,
requests for four months’ time to vacate the subject premises.
21. In view thereof, let an Undertaking by way of an Affidavit be filed by
the Petitioner/tenant, within a period of two weeks undertaking that:
(i) The Petitioner/tenant shall hand over the physical possession of the
property i.e., property bearing No.2517, Plot No.55 and 56, Khasra No.522,
Block-B, Ward No.XV, Nalwa Street, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi-
110055 [hereinafter referred to as the “subject Premises”] on or before
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 294/2024 Page 8 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:25.12.2024
15:45:33
18.04.2025;
(ii) The vacant, physical and peaceful possession of the subject premises
will be handed over by the Petitioner/tenant to the Respondents/landlords on
or before 18.04.2025;
(iii) The Petitioner/tenant undertakes and confirms that the entire subject
Premises are under their occupation and control;
(iv) The Petitioner/tenant will pay all the utility bills such as electricity
and water and any other dues, for the subject premises till the date of
handing over of the vacant, physical and peaceful possession thereof;
(v) The Petitioner/tenant undertakes that they will not create any third
party rights or part with possession of the subject premises and that they
shall not damage the subject premises in any manner whatsoever prior to its
vacation;
(vi) The Petitioner/tenant shall remain bound by the aforesaid
Undertaking.
22. An advance copy of the Undertaking shall be served on the
Respondents/landlords.
23. Subject to the Petitioner/tenant filing the aforesaid Undertaking before
this Court within one week from today, execution of order dated 16.04.2024
passed in RC/ARC No. No. 518/2023 [hereinafter referred to as the
“Eviction Order”] shall remain stayed till 18.04.2025.
24. In the event that the Petitioners/tenants defaults in complying with the
terms of the Undertaking filed, the interim protection granted hereinabove
3
2015 SCC Online Del 9488
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 294/2024 Page 9 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:25.12.2024
15:45:33
shall automatically stand dissolved and Respondent/landlord will be at
liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings for recovery of
possession and for recovery of the use and occupation charges from the
Petitioners/tenants at market rate for the period from the date of the Eviction
Order, in accordance with law.
25. The Petition and all pending Applications are accordingly dismissed.
26. List for compliance on 20.01.2025.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
DECEMBER 18, 2024/pa/r
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 294/2024 Page 10 of 10
By:GEETA JOSHI
Signing Date:25.12.2024
15:45:33