“Dilatory tactics adopted by litigants in eviction cases” – Delhi High Court

In an attempt to dissuade litigants from employing dilatory tactics and to uphold directions of National and State Court Management Systems Committees regarding expeditious disposal of eviction cases, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging an order of the Court of Additional Rent Controller (ARC)..The Additional Rent Controller had dismissed an application moved by the petitioners to recall a witness for cross examination after 3 years, in a matter which itself had been pending for 12 years..The Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw observed,.“The learned ARC in the impugned order has given detailed reasons for dismissal of the application which showed the neglect and dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioners with respect to a petition for eviction filed by the respondent on the ground of requirement of the premises in occupation of the petitioner for the own use of the respondent..Qua the challenge to the application, it is suffice to state that though the right of the petitioner to cross examine PW2 was closed as far back as on 5th June, 2013 but the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC was filed only after three years, in May, 2016″.The petitioners argued that initially they were being represented by Advocate Brijesh Johar from the firm NC Gupta and Co. However, after Johar left the firm in 2013 to set up his own practice, none from N.C. Gupta & Co. followed up the case. It was further argued that the said application was only filed in 2015 after Brijesh Johar was engaged again..The Court, however, rejected this argument and held that a perusal of the order sheet dated June 5, 2013 shows proxy counsel to have appeared for Brijesh Johar. The counsel for the petitioners on enquiry also stated that the said proxy counsel was from the office of NC Gupta and Co..The Court observed that it is thus not as if, NC Gupta and Co. had no idea of the case or that the said case went out of the horizon of NC Gupta and Co. after Johar left. The Court said,.“There is also no explanation as to why the petitioners did not contact N.C. Gupta & Co. Advocates or did not follow up the case. Merely by blaming earlier advocate and who is not even given the opportunity to defend the allegations against him, the opposite party to the litigation, cannot be made to suffer.”.Finally, the Court observed that the filing of the application and the petition is nothing but an attempt to delay the disposal of the petition for eviction. The Court held,.“If on the Judicial Side, the steps taken by the Judicial Officer to comply with the administrative directions (of the National Court Management Systems Committee of the Supreme Court and the State Court Management System Committee of this Court) are set aside, the same will amount to sending mixed-signals to the Judicial Officer resulting in target of disposal of all more than ten years old cases prior to 31st December, 2017 not being achieved.”.Read the order below.