Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Misc. RC ARC 35/23
MOHAN SWAROOP CHATURVEDI Vs. RAJENDER
KUMAR
CNR No. DLCT03-004420-2023
22.09.2023
Present : Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Ld. Counsel for DH.
Sh. Abhishek Chaturvedi, Ld. Counsel for JD.
File taken up in terms of order dated 19.08.2023
passed in Ex. No. 1045/23.
Vide eviction order dated 09.01.2023, the tenanted
premises i.e. First Floor and Second Floor, property bearing
municipal No. 3411, Bazar Sita Ram, Gali Bajarang Bali, Delhi
110006 was ordered to be evicted. Thereafter, execution petition
was filed for the execution for the aforesaid eviction order. Vide
order dated 11.08.2023 passed in the said execution petition
warrants of possession were issued. Vide order dated 19.08.2023,
it was informed that the JD has filed review petition against the
eviction order dated 09.01.2023. The said review petition was
directed to be put up today i.e. 22.09.2023 and accordingly, the
execution proceedings were stayed till today.
Arguments heard.
In the review petition, the JD has sought review on
the ground that after passing of the eviction order dated
09.01.2023 the review-petitioner got some information regarding
the respondent/landlord that the daughter-in-law of the
respondent i.e. Ms. Anika Khandelwal (for whose bona fide need
the original eviction petition was filed) was not dependent or
unemployed after filing of the leave to defend application in
November, 2020. It is claimed that on 07.12.2020, the
-- 1 of 4 --
respondent/landlord incorporated a company by the name “Best
Quality Fastners” and Ms. Anita Khandelwal was made one of
the directors in the company. The company is said to have its
registered office at 380, AGCR Enclave, Delhi. To support this
claim the review-petitioner has filed ‘company master data’
downloaded from official website of the Ministry of Corporate
Affairs.
The law as regards review is laid down in sub-
Section (9) of Section 25B of DRC Act which is as follows:
Where no application has been made to the High
Court on revision, the Controller may, exercise the powers of
review in accordance with the provisions of Order XL VII of the
First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
Rule 1 of Order 47 of CPC is reproduced
hereinafter:
Application for review of judgment:-
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is
allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is
allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of
Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not
within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the
time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of
some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for
any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the
decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review
-- 2 of 4 --
of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the
order.
As per Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, any person can seek
review of a judgment or order on the ground of discovery of new
and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due
diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced
by him at the time when decree was passed or order was made.
It is the case of the review-petitioner that Ms. Anika
Khandelwal was inducted as director in the company “Best
Quality Fastners” on 07.12.2020 while the final eviction order
came to be passed only on 09.01.2023. The document on which
the review-petitioner relies has been downloaded from the
official website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Such
information was in the public domain from 07.12.2020 and at
such of belated stage the review-petitioner cannot be permitted to
claim that this information was not within his knowledge. The
review-petitioner has also failed to give details as to how he got
to know about the company “Best Quality Fastners” and its
directors. Further, the record reveals that the review-petitioner
waited for filing of the execution petition before bringing this
factum of incorporation of “Best Quality Fastners” on record.
The special procedure under Section 25B of the
Delhi Rent Control Act differs from that of an ordinary suit
inasmuch as the respondent is required to plead all the facts
within the statutory period of 15 days from the date of service.
Any subsequent event can be brought on record only by an
application specifically filed for the said purpose, only in limited
circumstances. A review petition is not to be used as a tool to do
something indirectly which cannot other wise be done directly.
The remedy of review is an extraordinary remedy
-- 3 of 4 --
which should not be granted in a routine manner. Further, Order
47 Rule 1 CPC requires that the party seeking review of the
judgment/order must exercise due diligence. However, from the
conduct of the review-petitioner this ingredient is not found to be
satisfied. On this ground, the review-petition is dismissed.
Date earlier fixed is cancelled.
File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
(Pranav Joshi)
CCJ-cum-ARC (Central)
THC/Delhi/22.09.2023
-- 4 of 4 --