Shri Atul Kumar Vs. Shri Narinder Kumar

Shri Atul Kumar vs Shri Narinder Kumar

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Oct 29, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1171964

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1171964
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Valmiki J. Mehta
Decided On: Oct 29, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shri Atul Kumar

Advocate Mr. Umesh Shukla

Respondent

Shri Narinder Kumar

Excerpt

.....of the process of the law.2. the impugned order dated 6.9.2014 which is challenged by the petitioner/tenant, and who is the respondent in the court below, dismissed an application filed by the petitioner/tenant to recall pw-1 for crossexamination. the main eviction petition which is filed is for non-payment of rent and for bonafide necessity under section 14(1)(a) & (e) of the act.3. the impugned order notes that the cross-examination of pw-1 was already closed earlier vide order dated 6.9.2013, inasmuch as, petitioner/tenant had taken repeated adjournments for cross-examining pw-1 but yet did not conclude the cross-examination, resulting in the order dated 6.9.2013 closing the right to cross-examine pw-1. this order dated 6.9.2013 has not been challenged and hence has attained finality.4. surely, once the order dated 6.9.2013 has become final, then what cannot be done be directly also cannot be done indirectly ie if evidence of pw-1 was closed then, subsequently, pw-1 again cannot be recalled in the guise of seeking right to confront the pw-1 with documents. also, there is no reason why instead of confronting pw-1 with documents which are now sought to be proved by the respondent, the same cannot simply be proved by the petitioner/tenant in his own evidence.5. in view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner/tenant intends to keep on delaying and dragging the eviction petition which is filed against only on the petitioner, and therefore considering the delaying tactics of the petitioner, this petition is dismissed with costs of rs.20,000/- and payment of which costs to the landlord(respondent herein) shall be a condition precedent for the petitioner/tenant to continue with pursuing all his defences in the court below. copy of this order be sent to the trial court to ensure compliance of the same. october29 2014 ib cmm-955/2014

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.955/2014 & CM No.17589/2014(stay) % 29th October , 2014 SHRI ATUL KUMAR Through: ......Petitioner Mr. Umesh Shukla, Adv. VERSUS SHRI NARINDER KUMAR Through: ...... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.

MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. It is not unknown that tenants who contest eviction petitions filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), use all tricks in the book and not in the book to keep on delaying the disposal of the eviction petitions. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is one such petition and filed clearly in abuse of the process of the law.

2. The impugned order dated 6.9.2014 which is challenged by the petitioner/tenant, and who is the respondent in the court below, dismissed an application filed by the petitioner/tenant to recall PW-1 for crossexamination. The main eviction petition which is filed is for non-payment of rent and for bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(a) & (e) of the Act.

3. The impugned order notes that the cross-examination of PW-1 was already closed earlier vide order dated 6.9.2013, inasmuch as, petitioner/tenant had taken repeated adjournments for cross-examining PW-1 but yet did not conclude the cross-examination, resulting in the order dated 6.9.2013 closing the right to cross-examine PW-1. This order dated 6.9.2013 has not been challenged and hence has attained finality.

4. Surely, once the order dated 6.9.2013 has become final, then what cannot be done be directly also cannot be done indirectly ie if evidence of PW-1 was closed then, subsequently, PW-1 again cannot be recalled in the guise of seeking right to confront the PW-1 with documents. Also, there is no reason why instead of confronting PW-1 with documents which are now sought to be proved by the respondent, the same cannot simply be proved by the petitioner/tenant in his own evidence.

5. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner/tenant intends to keep on delaying and dragging the eviction petition which is filed against only on the petitioner, and therefore considering the delaying tactics of the petitioner, this petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- and payment of which costs to the landlord(respondent herein) shall be a condition precedent for the petitioner/tenant to continue with pursuing all his defences in the court below. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court to ensure compliance of the same. OCTOBER29 2014 ib CMM-955/2014

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2014 Same Parties Shri Atul Kumar vs Shri Narinder Kumar Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Valmiki J. Mehta