Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Misc SCJ NO. 319/2024
AMIT GUPTA VS. ANUPAM HOTELIERS LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR AJAY
17.05.2025
Present: Sh. Rajan Chaudhary and Sh. Abhishek Gupta, Counsels for applicants.
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Counsel for non-applicant.
1. Clarifications heard. Record perused.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present matter as necessary for disposal of
the present application are that the non-applicant/landlord had filed eviction
petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act against the applicant /tenant.
During the pendency of the said eviction petition, on 26.11.2019, in view of joint
submissions of the parties, order under Section 15 (1) of the DRC Act was passed
directing the tenants to pay arrears of rent to the landlord @ Rs. 55.27/- per
month for the period starting on 01.02.2019 upto 30.11.2019 within 30 days from
the date of order. Further, the tenants were also directed to pay future rent at the
rate of Rs. 55.27/- per month by the 15th day of each succeeding calendar month
w.e.f. 01.12.2019. However, the tenants filed an appeal against the said order
dated 26.11.2019 which was, however, dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2020.
Subsequently, in the eviction petition, the landlord moved an application dated
02.05.2022 under Section 15 (7) of the DRC Act seeking that the defence of the
tenants be struck off for non-compliance of order under Section 15 (1) of the
DRC Act. No reply was filed to the said application on behalf of the tenants.
Further, the tenants did not appear to argue upon the application as well.
Thereafter, vide order dated 22.11.2022, the defence of the tenants was struck
off. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 22.07.2023, eviction petition was
allowed and possession was taken by the landlord on 01.12.2023.
3. Now, by way of present application, it is contended on behalf of the
tenant/applicant that the landlord produced forged record/documents and
affidavit claiming that the rent has not been deposited whereas after the dismissal
-- 1 of 4 --
of appeal on 09.07.2020, the rent had been deposited through bank pay in slip
dated 17.08.2020. It is further contended that the rent was deposited directly in
the bank account provided by the landlord in the eviction petition yet the
landlord in the application under Section 15 (7) of the DRC Act duly supported
by his affidavit claimed that rent has not been paid and deposited in the account.
Hence, it is prayed that proceedings under Section 340 Cr. P. C. r/w Section 195
IPC be initiated against the landlord for submitting false and fabricated evidence
and for making false declaration and statement on oath.
4. On notice, no reply was filed on behalf of the non-applicant/landlord.
However, it is contended that the present application is prima facie is not
maintainable.
Firstly, it is contended that being court of Rent Controller, this
tribunal lacks jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr. P. C.
Secondly, it is contended
that there was default on the part of the tenant in complying with order dated
26.11.2019.
Lastly, it is contended that even if the averment made by the
applicant/tenant is admitted to be correct, still the landlord cannot be faulted for
the same since no intimation was given to the landlord that the said amount of Rs.
2,000/- is being deposited by the tenant and the said amount has been deposited
on his behalf.
5.
Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the applicant/tenant that in view of
Section 36 of the DRC Act, this court has jurisdiction u/s 340 Cr. P. C. It is further
stated that the judgment relied upon by the non-applicant/landlord, is
distinguishable on facts as it pertained to rent legislation of Punjab which does
not have any specific section like Section 36 of DRC Act. Further, it is contended
that the receipt of Rs. 2000/- is not disputed by non-applicant/landlord.
Therefore, it is submitted that the landlord/non-applicant deliberately made false
submissions on oath.
Hence, it is prayed that appropriate action be taken against
him.
6. I have already heard the arguments and perused the record.
-- 2 of 4 --
7. It is no longer
res integra that the exercise of judicial discretion before
proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are initiated, is to be premised on a prima-
facie finding of the court that it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate
such proceedings. In the application at hand, what is contended to be a false
claim made by the landlord is that despite the deposit of rent on 17.08.2020, the
landlord stated that no rent has been deposited.
However, it is pertinent to note
that vide order dated 26.11.2019, it was specifically directed that the arrears of
rent are to be paid within 30 days. Admittedly, the said arrears had not been
deposited within 30 days. Further, it is not the case of the applicant that any stay
had been granted by the appellate court during the pendency of the appeal for not
complying with the order dated 26.11.2019. Furthermore, even if it is assumed
that since the tenant had preferred the appeal and therefore, did not comply with
the order within 30 days, it is pertinent to note that the appeal was dismissed on
09.07.2020 and despite that, even from the date of dismissal of the appeal, the
rent had not been deposited within 30 days.
Thus, it is not in dispute that the
tenant had in fact defaulted in the compliance of order under Section 15 (1) of the
DRC Act which was the basis of order dated 22.11.2022 vide which the defence
of the tenant was struck off. Moreover, perusal of order dated 22.11.2022 shows
that the tenant did not avail the opportunity to file the reply. Further, it is not in
dispute that the tenant was aware of the proceedings and yet chose not to appear
before the Court to contest the said claim of the landlord.
8. While it is true that it is the duty of the Courts to ensure that no false claim
or pleadings are made before it, it is equally important to remember that said
section was never intended to operate as an appeal in disguise for a party
dissatisfied with an order/judgment against him. Therefore, whether there was
sufficient cause for explaining the delay in payment of arrears of rent or not or
whether the concerned court would have arrived at different conclusion or not,
had the said document /pay in slip been made available to the concerned court at
the time of passing order on 22.11.2022 does not fall within the domain of
Section 340 Cr. P. C. The onus was upon the tenant to produce the said slip/proof
-- 3 of 4 --
of payment of rent. Admittedly, opportunity had been given which was not
availed by the applicant/tenant herein. In the present matter, the tenant had the
opportunity to contest the said application under Section 15 (7) of the DRC Act
and explain the reasons for the default /delay. Moreover, it is also pertinent to
note that as per order dated 26.11.2019, arrears of rent @ Rs. 55.27/- per month
for the period starting on 01.02.2019 upto 30.11.2019 had been directed to be
deposited. It is not the case of applicant that Rs. 2,000/- is the exact amount of
arrears. Further, it is not apparent from the deposit amount of Rs. 2,000/- as to
which period, the said amount has been deposited and for what number of
months, the said amount has been deposited. It was the duty of the tenant to
specify the time period for which and the number of months for which the rent is
being tendered and without specifying the same, there is no onus upon the other
party to assume that the said amount has been tendered towards compliance of
order dated 26.11.2019. Hence, the apparent circumstances of the case do not
reveal that a false claim was deliberately made by the landlord in the Court with
an oblique motive.
The facts of case thus do not prima facie reveal that
administration of justice was impacted or that there was intention to raise false
claim.
9. In view of the above, it is the considered opinion of this Court that in the
facts of the case at hand, it is not in the interest of justice that a complaint should
be made against any of the landlord under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the
instant application stands dismissed.
10. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Rupinder Singh Dhiman)
ARC-01, Central District,THC.
17.05.2025
-- 4 of 4 --