BEFORE SH.

RAKESH TIWARI, RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL,

EAST, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI

RCT NO. 08/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. MADHU RANI SOI & ANR. …

APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SH. PREM CHAND & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Hemant Gupta, S/o Lt. H. P. Gupta having chamber at F-607,

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi-110032, do hereby solemnly affirm and
declare as under:-

1. That I am the counsel for the appellant in the above noted appeal and
as such competent to depose the present affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying application are true and

correct to my knowledge, be read as part and parcel to this affidavit and the
same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Delhi on this 19th day of April, 2018 that the contents of above
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 BEFORE SH. RAKESH TIWARI, RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL,
EAST, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI

RCT NO. 08/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. MADHU RANI SOI & ANR. …

APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SH. PREM CHAND & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

D.O.H:-
04.05.2018

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC ON BEHALF OF

THE APPELLANTS

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The appellants have filed the aforesaid appeal against the order dated
15.3.2018 passed by the Ld. ARC, EAST, KKD, Delhi and is fixed for
04.05.2018 for notice to the respondents.

2. At the time of filing of appeal, the counsel for the appellants had
inadvertently mentioned the address of the respondent no. 3 as of
respondents 1, 2 and whereas respondent no. 3 actually resides in Haridwar.

3. The above mistake/error in the Memo of parties filed along with

Memorandum of Appeal is unintentional and is required to be corrected in
the interest of justice. The appeal is at initial stage and the notice of the
same has been directed to be issued for 4.5.2018 and no prejudice would be
caused to any one in case the address of the respondent no. 3 is allowed to
be corrected. The Amended Memo of Parties is filed along with the
application.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, it is most respectfully

prayed to this Hon’ble court to:
i. take on record the enclosed amended memo of parties;
ii. allow the appellant to serve notice on the respondents on the addresses
as mentioned in the amended memo of parties;
iii. pass such further orders and direction as may be necessary in the fact
and circumstances of the case.

Delhi
Dated:19.04.2018 Hemant Gupta
Advocate for
Appellants
 BEFORE SH. RAKESH TIWARI, RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL,
EAST, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI

RCT NO. 08/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. MADHU RANI SOI & ANR. …

APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SH. PREM CHAND & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

AMENDED MEMO OF PARTIES

1. MADHU RANI
W/O LT MADAN MOHAN
R/O d-17, 2ND FLOOR
LAXMI NAGR DELHI-92

2. RICHA MALHOTRA
W/O SH. ABHINAV MALHOTRA
H NO. D-3/1203A, 13TH
PURI PRANAYAM
SECTOR 82,85, FARIDABAD
HARYANA-101007
……..APPELLANTS

VERSUS

1. SH. PREM CHAND

S/O LT RAM NATH
R/O 198/29 RAM NAGAR,
SHAHDARA DELHI

2. SH. MANOHAR LAL

S/O LT RAM NATH
R/O 198/29 RAM NAGAR,
SHAHDARA DELHI

3. SH. SUSHIL KUMAR

S/O LT RAM NATH
R/O D-3/2, SHRI RAM NAGAR
NEAR GOLE GURUDWARA, STATION ROAD
 JAWALAPUR, HARIDWAR, UTTRAKHAND

4. SH. VIJAY KUMAR

S/O LT RAM NATH
R/O 198/29 RAM NAGAR,
SHAHDARA DELHI …RESPONDENTS

DELHI RAMESH KUMAR & HEMANT GUPTA

DATED: 18.04.2018 ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANTS
 OPENING SHEET APPEALS IN COURT SUBORDINATE TO
HIGH COURT

BEFORE RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, EAST

KARKARDOOMA, DELHI

APPEAL NO. _________ OF 2018

NUMBER AND DATE OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT

No. Date of Institution in first court : RC ARC 163/2017

16.11.2017
Date of decision in the first court : 15.03.2018

Date of Institution of appeal : 14.04.2018

Value of sum and appeal

for purposes of jurisdiction : Rs. 15/-
Value of appeal for
purpose of court fee : Rs. 15/-
Amount of fee on appeal : Rs. 15/-

1. MADHU RANI
W/O LT MADAN MOHAN
R/O d-17, 2ND FLOOR
LAXMI NAGR DELHI-92

2. RICHA MALHOTRA
W/O SH. ABHINAV MALHOTRA
H NO. D-3/1203A, 13TH FLOOR,
PURI PRANAYAM
SECTOR 82,85, FARIDABAD
HARYANA-101007
……..APPELLANTS

VERSUS

1. SH. PREM CHAND

S/O LT RAM NATH
R/O 198/29 RAM NAGAR,
SHAHDARA DELHI
2. SH. MANOHAR LAL
S/O LT RAM NATH
R/O 198/29 RAM NAGAR,
SHAHDARA DELHI
3. SH. SUSHIL KUMAR
S/O LT RAM NATH
R/O 198/29 RAM NAGAR,
SHAHDARA DELHI

4. SH. VIJAY KUMAR

S/O LT RAM NATH
R/O 198/29 RAM NAGAR,
SHAHDARA DELHI …RESPONDENTS

Appeal filed by : Ramesh Kumar & Hemant Gupta, Advocates

Appeal from the order of Sh. Nipun Awasthi, ACJ/CCJ/ARC(E), KKD

Courts, Delhi dated 15.03.2018.

Claim in Appeal:- To accept the appeal with costs, set-aside the

impugned order dated 15.3.2018, allow the
application of the petitioners and pass the eviction
order against respondents no. 1 & 4 .
BRIEF FACTS: -

1. Appellants (petitioners in the petition) filed a petition U/s 14(1)(e)

R/w 25 B of DRC Act against the respondents. Out of the said four
respondents, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 did not contest the eviction petition
whereas the respondent nos. 1 and 4 filed separate applications for grant of
leave to defend. Both said applications were dismissed and the petition was
allowed vide common order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the Ld. ARC-
01/EAST/KKD/DELHI.

2. Against the aforementioned order dated 24.1.2013, the respondent

No. 1 preferred a Revision petition bearing no. RC REV. 255/2013 before
the Hon’ble High court of Delhi at New Delhi. The same was allowed vide
order dated 10.9.2014 and the respondent no. 1 herein was granted
unconditional leave with a direction

“Parties to appear before the Rent Controller, East Karkardooma

Courts, Delhi and the Rent Controller will mark the petition to a
competent Court of Additional Rent Controller or may retain the
petition with himself for disposal in accordance with law.”

3. In the meantime against the order dated 24.01.2013 the respondent

no. 4 on March 11, 2013 preferred a review petition bearing no. Misc SCJ-
144/16 which was disposed of as withdrawn on 9.3.2017.

4. It is submitted that while the review petition was pending the

appellants herein informed the Learned ARC about the factum that the RC
REV filed by the respondent no. 1 stands allowed. Accordingly the
respondent no.1 was also issued notice in the review petition. Eventually
all the respondents were issued notice in the review petition.

5. In the said petition the appellant herein had also filed an application
under order 8 rule 10 for striking off the defense of the respondent no. 1
herein as inspite of his leave to defend application being allowed in RC
REV in the year 2014 the respondent failed to file his written statement.
6. However as all the applications though filed in the main eviction
petition were listed and taken up in the review petition, when the review
petition was disposed of as withdrawn, none of the application were heard
and no orders were passed therein on the technical ground that main
petition was not marked in terms of the order dated 10.9.2014 passed by the
Hon’ble High court.

7. Accordingly, the appellant moved an application and the main

petition was marked before the Learned ARC.

8. On revival of the petition, the petitioners filed an application on

21.11.2017 for passing an eviction order in favour petitioners and against
the respondents No. 1 & 4 and further that respondents No. 1 & 4 be
directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the property
bearing No. 94/2, situated on the right front side of Shanker Market
shopping complex, Railway Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. The said
application of the petitioners was dismissed by the Ld. ARC vide its order
dated 15.3.2018.

9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.03.2018, the appellants

are preferring the present appeal amongst other the following

GROUNDS

A. Because the impugned order and the findings returned therein by the
Ld. ARC are wrong, untenable and manifest with errors;

B. Because the Ld. ARC failed to appreciate that for all practical
purposes the review petition on behalf of respondent no. 4 was also treated
as if the main eviction petition was being revived on account of orders
passed by the Hon’ble High court whereby leave to defendant application
filed on respondent no 1 was allowed.
C. Because the Ld. ARC erred in law by not appreciating that the
appellant herein duly intimated the Ld. ARC about the order dated
10.9.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court.

D. Because the Ld. ARC erred in law by not appreciating that Ld. ARC
on being intimated about the order dated 10.9.14 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court, directed that notice be also issued to all the respondents and
hence by necessary implication the eviction petition stood revived.

E. Because the Ld. ARC erred failed to appreciate that appellants

thereafter filed an application under order 8 Rule 10 of CPC in the eviction
petition which was taken on record and the notice of the same was issued to
all the respondents.

F. Because the Ld. ARC failed to appreciate that aforesaid application

was filed in the main eviction petition and the same was taken on record.
Even notice of the same was issued and thus the impression was given that
the matter is being proceeded under the main eviction petition.

G. Because the Ld. ARC erred by not passing any order upon the
application filed appellants under order 8 rule 10 on the withdrawal of
review petition by the respondent no. 4 and by holding that except for
review petition no other petition was pending before him.

H. Because the Ld. ARC erred by holding that the main petition was not
pending before him as none of the parties had approached the Ld. RC in
terms of order dated 10.9.2014.

I. Because the Ld. ARC erred in law by not appreciating that it was the
revision petition of the respondent no. 1 which was allowed by the Hon’ble
High Court and hence it was primarily his duty to get the petition revived.
J. Because the Ld. ARC erred by not appreciating that the Hon’ble
court had passed the order on 10.9.2014 whereas the respondent no. 1
admittedly never took any steps whatsoever in terms of this order till date.
K. Because the Ld. ARC erred in law by not appreciating that once the
leave to defend application of the respondent no. 1 was allowed it was
obligatory on him to file the written statement within maximum period of
90 days as stipulated in CPC.

L. Because the Ld. ARC erred in law by not appreciating that the notice
of the application under order 8 rule 10 CPC was duly served upon the
respondent on 25.2.2017 and despite the same he choose not to file his
written statement within the stipulated period of 30 days.

M. Because the Ld. ARC erred in law that the benefit of the order dated
10.9.2014 was bound to be given to the respondent no. 4 despite the fact
that the Hon’ble judge of High Court in its order dated 10.9.2014 had
categorically mentioned that respondent no. 4 is no longer contesting the
eviction petition.

N. Because if the impugned order dated 15.03.2018 is allowed to stand

there would a grave miscarriage and travesty of justice;

O. The order of the Ld ARC is against the fundamental principle of

judicial procedure.

10. The present appeal has been filed within a period of limitation. The
impugned order is dated 15.03.2018. The certified copy of the same was
applied on 16.03.2018 which got ready on 23.03.2018 and was received on
02.04.2018.

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be

pleased to:-

a. set-aside the impugned order dated 15.03.2018 in petition bearing

no. RC ARC 163/2017 titled as “Smt. Madhu Rani Soi & Anr. –Vs-- Sh.
Prem Chand & Ors.” by accepting the appeal of the appellant and to pass an
eviction order in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents no. 1
& 4 and further direct the respondents No. 1 & 4 to handover the vacant
and peaceful possession of the property bearing No. 94/2, situated on the
right front side of Shanker Market shopping complex, Railway Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032 as shown red in the site plan of the petitioners

b. pass any further other order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

APPELLANTS

THROUGH

DELHI RAMESH KUMAR & HEMANT

GUPTA
DATED: 13.04.2018 ADVOCATES
BEFORE RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, EAST, KARKARDOOMA,
DELHI

APPEAL NO. /2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. MADHU RANI SOI & ANR. …

APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SH. PREM CHAND & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Madhu Rani w/o Lt. Sh. Madan Mohan aged 83 R/o D-17, Second Floor,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under: -

1. That I am Appellant no.1 in the above noted case, am well

conversant with the facts of the case and as such competent to depose the
present affidavit.

2. That I have gone through the contents of accompanying appeal

and the facts stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge whereas
the legal submissions on the basis of the legal information received and
believed to be true. The contents of the application be read as part and
parcel of this affidavit as the same are not being repeated herein for the
sake of brevity.

Deponent
Verification:-
Verified at Delhi on this 13th day of April, 2018 that the contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and no part
of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent
BEFORE RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, EAST, KARKARDOOMA,
DELHI

APPEAL NO. /2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. MADHU RANI SOI & ANR. …

APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SH. PREM CHAND & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Richa Malhotra w/o. Sh. Abhinav Malhotra aged 31 R/o D-3/1203A, 13th
Floor, Puri Pranayam, Sectro-82,85, Faridabad, Haryana, 101007 do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under: -

1. That I am Appellant no. 2 in the above noted case, am well

conversant with the facts of the case and as such competent to depose the
present affidavit.

2. That I have gone through the contents of accompanying appeal

and the facts stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge whereas
the legal submissions on the basis of the legal information received and
believed to be true. The contents of the application be read as part and
parcel of this affidavit as the same are not being repeated herein for the
sake of brevity.

Deponent
Verification:-

Verified at Delhi on this 13th day of April, 2018 that the contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and no part
of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent
BEFORE RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, EAST, KARKARDOOMA,
DELHI

APPEAL NO. /2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. MADHU RANI SOI & ANR. …

APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SH. PREM CHAND & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. MADHU RANI
W/O LT MADAN MOHAN
R/O d-17, 2ND FLOOR
LAXMI NAGR DELHI-92

2. RICHA MALHOTRA
W/O SH. ABHINAV MALHOTRA
H NO. D-3/1203A, 13TH
PURI PRANAYAM
SECTOR 82,85, FARIDABAD
HARYANA-101007
……..APPELLANTS

VERSUS

1. SH. PREM CHAND

S/O LT RAM NATH
R/O 198/29 RAM NAGAR,
SHAHDARA DELHI

2. SH. MANOHAR LAL

S/O LT RAM NATH
R/O 198/29 RAM NAGAR,
SHAHDARA DELHI

3. SH. SUSHIL KUMAR

S/O LT RAM NATH
R/O 198/29 RAM NAGAR,
 SHAHDARA DELHI

4. SH. VIJAY KUMAR

S/O LT RAM NATH
R/O 198/29 RAM NAGAR,
SHAHDARA DELHI …RESPONDENTS

DELHI RAMESH KUMAR & HEMANT

GUPTA
DATED: 13.04.2018 ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANTS
BEFORE RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, EAST, KARKARDOOMA,
DELHI

APPEAL NO. /2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. MADHU RANI SOI & ANR. …

APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SH. PREM CHAND & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

INDEX

S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NOS.

1. Memo of Parties A-A1

2. Opening Sheet B-B1
3. Brief Fact and Grounds of appeal along 1-7
with supporting affidavits
4. Certified copy of order dated 15.03.2018 8-13
5. Vakalatnama C

DELHI RAMESH KUMAR & HEMANT

GUPTA
DATED: 13.04.2018 ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANTS
 BEFORE RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, EAST,
KARKARDOOMA, DELHI

APPEAL NO. /2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. MADHU RANI SOI & ANR. …

APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SH. PREM CHAND & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Madhu Rani w/o Lt. Sh. Madan Mohan aged 83 R/o D-17, Second Floor,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under: -

1. That I am Appellant no.1 in the above noted case, am well

conversant with the facts of the case and as such competent to depose the
present affidavit.

2. That I have gone through the contents of accompanying

application and the facts stated therein are true and correct to my
knowledge whereas the legal submissions on the basis of the legal
information received and believed to be true. The contents of the
application be read as part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are not
being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Deponent
Verification:-
Verified at Delhi on this 13th day of April, 2018 that the contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and no part
of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent
BEFORE RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, EAST, KARKARDOOMA,
DELHI

APPEAL NO. /2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. MADHU RANI SOI & ANR. …

APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SH. PREM CHAND & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Richa Malhotra w/o. Sh. Abhinav Malhotra aged 31 R/o D-3/1203A, 13th
Floor, Puri Pranayam, Sectro-82,85, Faridabad, Haryana, 101007 do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under: -

1. That I am Appellant no. 2 in the above noted case, am well

conversant with the facts of the case and as such competent to depose the
present affidavit.

2. That I have gone through the contents of accompanying

application and the facts stated therein are true and correct to my
knowledge whereas the legal submissions on the basis of the legal
information received and believed to be true. The contents of the
application be read as part and parcel of this affidavit as the same are not
being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Deponent
Verification:-

Verified at Delhi on this 13th day of April, 2018 that the contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief and no part
of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent