Satish Kumar vs. Attar Singh And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the objection petition was rightly dismissed in a summary manner, and there was no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the lower fora. The Court found no substance in the petitioner's claim that he was denied an opportunity to lead evidence. The petitioner failed to provide any documentary evidence, beyond rent receipts which were disputed as forged, to substantiate his claim of running a business from the premises for 22 years. The absence of any registration from tax authorities (Sales Tax, VAT, ITR, GST), bills, invoices, electricity bills, or even photographs of the business operation, rendered his objection unsubstantiated. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that an opportunity to lead evidence is granted only if there is some substance in the objection. The Court also noted that the shop was clearly demarcated in the site plan and there was no collusion between the landlord and the judgment debtor. The Court concluded that its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution should be exercised restrictively and found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the appellate Tribunal. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Satish Kumar, filed an objection petition under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC claiming to be a lawful tenant of Shop No. 2 at property No. 235, Main Haiderpur Road, Delhi, inducted in 2002 by Mr. Attar Singh, and paying rent regularly. He contended that the eviction decree obtained by Mr. Attar Singh and Mr. Chhattar Singh against Kamlesh Saini and Kishan Saini pertained to Shop No. 3 and thus, he could not be evicted. He supported his claim with rent receipts from 2002 to 2016. The decree holders resisted the objection, alleging the rent receipts were forged and that the shop in question was clearly demarcated in the eviction petition's site plan. The Rent Controller dismissed the objections on 03.11.2016, and an appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was also dismissed on 27.08.2024. This dismissal is under challenge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the objection petition filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC was erroneously dismissed in a summary manner, thereby denying him an opportunity to lead evidence? (Question of law and fact, turning on Order XXI Rule 58 CPC and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that his objection petition should not have been disposed of summarily. He contended that he had placed rent receipts on record, and the respondent's denial that they were forged was bald. He claimed he was running a shop under the name Bajrang Bali Store and deserved an opportunity to lead evidence to substantiate his claim of tenancy and business operations for 22 years. Revenue/Respondent's arguments: The respondent (decree holder) argued that the rent receipts were forged. They contended that there was no confusion regarding the shop as it was clearly demarcated in the site plan attached to the eviction petition. They also argued that no numbering was given to the shops and the objector's intention was to delay the execution. The respondent further highlighted the lack of any supporting documents for the petitioner's alleged business, such as GST registration, bills, invoices, or electricity bills.