Manmohan, J.— Present revision petition has been filed by petitioner/tenant under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 challenging the eviction order dated 4th July, 2005.
2. When I had taken up the matter for hearing on 13th February, 2009, learned Counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that property No. 4251, Mohalla Jatan, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-110006 was an alternative residential property available to respondent/landlord for residential use and occupation. In this connection, petitioner's Counsel drew my attention to Annexure P-R8 which according to him showed that respondent had been paying house tax for the said property. Even though I did not find mention of property No. 4251, Mohalla Jatan, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-110006 in the petitioner's leave to defend application, in the interest of justice, I asked respondent to file a response thereto.
3. Respondent herein filed a detailed affidavit wherein he specifically averred that neither he nor any of his family members or relative have any right, title, interest or possession of house No. 4251, Mohalla Jatan, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-110006. In the said affidavit, it was further stated that the said house was initially occupied by petitioner's brother-in-law as a tenant and petitioner had stayed in the said property when he was a minor. In the said affidavit, it was also stated that respondent's brother-in-law had vacated the said premises in and around the year 1955 and the said property was no longer available to him.
4. On 4th March, 2009, petitioner filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein he emphasized that another property bearing No. 4410, Mohalla Jatan, Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 was available to respondent. In the said counter affidavit, petitioner mentioned about property No. 4251, Mohalla Jatan, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-110006 only in one paragraph and that too by stating that in some other proceedings the petitioner had, in the year, 1976 mentioned his address as 4251, Mohalla Jatan, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-110006. In the said counter affidavit, there was no specific denial of the averment that the said property was neither owned or occupied or available to respondent/landlord.
5. During the course of hearing, when I asked petitioner as to whether he had any document or evidence to show that property No. 4251, Mohalla Jatan, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-110006 was available for residential use and occupation of respondent either at the time of filing of eviction petition i.e in the year, 2004 or at any subsequent period of time, learned Counsel for petitioner candidly stated that he had no documents or evidence in his possession.
6. However, learned Counsel for petitioner immediately changed track and started emphasizing about another property being property No. 4410, Mohalla Jatan, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-110006. Again on perusal of leave to defend application, I found that this property had not been mentioned as being available for residential use and occupation of the respondent. But in the interest of justice, I once again asked the respondent to file his response with regard to the said property.
7. On 5th May, 2009, respondent handed over his reply affidavit in which it was stated that the said property was owned by the respondent's son but no part of it was in respondent's possession. It was further averred that the said property was in occupation of tenants for more than 17 to 18 years and no part of the said property was available for use and occupation to either respondent or his family members.
8. Upon being confronted with this affidavit, petitioner once again changed track and argued that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondent. He stated that petitioner had in the year 1984 taken on rent a piece of land measuring 13 sq. yards from Shri Umrao Singh and, thereafter, petitioner had constructed a shop at his own cost. Learned Counsel for petitioner argued at length that respondent was not the owner of tenanted premises and further that respondent's suit for declaration bearing Suit No. 598/2002 was still pending before Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
9. On a perusal of the file, I find that respondent/landlord had filed a suit for injunction in the year 1967 against Union of India, Custodian Evacuee property and the Chief Settlement Commissioner claiming to be owner of tenanted premises bearing House No. 11036 to 11038, Motia Khan, Delhi. In the said suit, one of the specific issues framed was whether respondent/landlord was the owner of suit property?
10. After a protracted trial, Ms. Manju Goel, Sub-Judge (as she then was) after recording Umrao Singh's statement, gave a finding that respondent was owner of suit property. I may mention that from the said judgment, it is apparent that Umrao Singh had deposed in respondent's favour and had specifically stated that he had transferred the land to respondent. Even, an appeal filed by Union of India against the said judgment was dismissed by Additional District Judge vide his detailed judgment and order dated 17th September, 1977. Learned Counsel for petitioner contended that the said judgment was obtained by respondent by fraudulent means.
11. Learned Counsel for respondent took exception to this argument and pointed out that petitioner had paid rent and executed rent receipts wherein the purpose of letting was mentioned as residential. He further pointed out that as petitioner had in the year 1994 stopped making payment of rent, respondent had filed a civil suit for recovery of rent. He stated that after a full contest, Court of Mrs. Neena Krishna Bansal, Judge, Small Causes Courts, had passed a decree of arrears of rent vide judgment dated 27th April, 2002 holding that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondent. He further stated that even the petitioner's revision petition against the judgment of Courts of Small Causes, was dismissed in limine by this Court while holding that petitioner was tenant in the said premises under the respondent. The said order dated July 8, 2002 passed by a Single Judge of this Court is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Petitioner had been making payment of rent to the respondent admittedly since 1994 and had at no point of time objected to the relationship of landlord and tenant before the filing of the suit by the respondent. Even in his application for grant of electricity connection, the petitioner had described the respondent as the landlord of the premises and rent receipt issued by the respondent was filed along with the application. It was on these facts that the trial Court held the respondent to be entitled to rent and directed the petitioner to pay rent to the respondent. There is also a judgment of the Court of competent jurisdiction declaring the respondent to be the owner of the property bearing No. 11036 to 11038. It is in these properties that the petitioner is a tenant. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the trial Court. There are no merits in this petition and the same is, accordingly dismissed.”
12. Learned Counsel for respondent further pointed out that even though petitioner's case in the present proceedings was that he had constructed a shop in tenanted premises in the year 1984, petitioner had filed an affidavit before the electricity authorities wherein he had stated that premises had been constructed in the year 1981.
13. Having heard the parties at length, I am of the opinion that the judgment of Sub-Judge dated 23rd October, 1974 as well as of Additional District Judge dated 17th September, 1977 and Small Causes Courts dated 27th April, 2002 coupled with order of this Court dated 8th July, 2002 in C.R No. 637/2002 establish beyond doubt that respondent is the owner of tenanted premises and petitioner on the principle of res judicata is disentitled from disputing respondent's ownership of tenanted premises in his leave to defend application. I may mention that in the case of Ramesh Ahuja & Anr.… v. Ram Nath Jain…., 158 (2009) DLT 347 in RCR 20/2009 decided on 1st April, 2009, it has been held as under:
“5. Undoubtedly, a Court of Small Causes has limited jurisdiction, but in my opinion, on the principles of res judicata, finding of Court of Small Causes that respondent was owner of tenanted premises, would disentitle petitioners from raising this plea in their leave to defend application.”
14. I may mention that, in the present eviction proceedings the respondent herein has only to prove that he is a landlord. He need not prove ownership of the premises—but in the present case, even the said issue stands concluded in earlier proceedings. Consequently, in my view, present petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
15. Before I part with this judgment, I may point out that today a class of litigants has emerged, who have scant regard for truth. They not only take false pleas but also file multifarious litigations in the hope that in view of the docket explosion in Courts, the cases would unnecessarily prolong. These litigants believe that as justice is depicted to be blind folded, the Courts will not be able to pierce the veil of their multi-layered defences in multifarious litigations.
16. In fact, the present case is a text book example as to how even after judgments of various Courts including this Court, petitioner has boldly argued during the present proceedings that respondent was not the owner/landlord of tenanted premises. I think time has come when Courts must take a very serious view of this malice in order to stem the rot of litigants “lying through their teeth”.
17. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I issue notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why proceedings under Section 340, Cr.P.C along with relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code be not initiated against him for taking the plea that respondent was not landlord of the tenanted premises despite the judgment of Small Causes Courts as well as this Court's order dated 8th July, 2002 holding that petitioner was respondent's tenant, returnable for 22nd September, 2009.
Ordered accordingly.