IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(INHERENT
JURISDICTION)
(UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2198 OF 2019
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
12277 OF 2019
[Arising
out of the order dated 22.07.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12277 of 2019]
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shobha Aggarwal ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Others ... Respondents
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
That this review petition impugns the order dated
22.07.2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
12277 of 2019 whereby the Hon’ble Court had dismissed the SLP in limine. The SLP (Civil) No. 12277 was
preferred against the judgement/order dated 07.01.2019 passed in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 516 of 2010 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi whereby it had
upheld the constitutional validity of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
The issue raised by the petitioner is of substantial
public interest and far reaching public importance. The summary dismissal of
the SLP is unfair according to
the canons of justice and
fair play. The SLP was dismissed without consideration of the
submissions of the Review Petitioner as another SLP(C) No. 8602 of
2019 titled Mahender Yadav vs. Union
of India & Anr. filed against the common judgement dated 07.01.2019 of
the High Court of Delhi had been dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 11.04.2019.
Several similar petitions relating to other state rent
acts as also the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 are pending adjudication before
this Hon’ble Court. Therefore the summary dismissal of the petitioner’s SLP is
discriminatory and biased.
The impugned order is
based on errors apparent on the face of the record and subsequent information
has come to light non consideration of which will cause grave miscarriage of
justice.
That for the sake of brevity the contents of the
detailed List of Dates filed along with the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
12277 of 2019 are not reiterated herein but they may be taken as part and
parcel of the present petition.
The list of dates and events leading to the filing of the present
Petition before this Hon’ble Court are detailed herein below:-
|
Dates
|
Events
|
|
20.02.2002
|
Civil Appeal No. 1012/2002 titled Property Owners’ Association & Others
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others along with several other petitions
challenging inter alia various sections of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,
1999 relating to fixation of standard rent is referred to a nine judge bench
by a bench of seven learned judges of this Hon’ble Court on the
interpretation of Article 39(b). The petitions are pending adjudication.
|
|
18.01.2010
|
The Petitioner herein along with
two other co-petitioners filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi which
was registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 516 of 2010 inter alia praying
that Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 be declared as unconstitutional and
violative of Articles 13, 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
|
|
29.11.2012
|
One Shri
Mahender Yadav filed a copycat writ petition in the High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi which got registered as W.P. (C)-7489/2012. This petition also
challenged the constitutional validity of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It
was clubbed with the W.P. (C) 516 of 2010 filed in the High Court of Delhi by
the petitioner herein.
|
|
03.09.2013
|
Leave is granted by this Hon’ble
Court in Special Leave Petitions filed against the judgement and order dated
15.02.2012 in CM No. 48/2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
This judgement had held that:
“A
landlord of a premises governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is
entitled to have increase(s) in rent only in accordance with Section
6A and 8 thereof and not otherwise; such a landlord cannot
approach the Civil Court contending that the rent stands increased or should
be increased in accordance with the inflation or cost price index; the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court in this regard is barred by Section
50 of the Delhi Rent Act.”
The SLP against this order is
registered as C.A. No. 7814 / 2013 titled Santosh Vaid &
Anr. Vs. Uttam Chand and is
pending adjudication along with other similar petitions arising out of the
same judgement/order of the Delhi High Court.
If decided in favour of the appellants/landlords it would have the
effect of nullifying the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
|
|
24.01.2017
|
Leave is granted by this Hon’ble
Court in Special Leave Petitions filed against the judgement and order dated
04.04.2014 in CMWP No. 50870/2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad upholding the constitutional validity of the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Act, 1971. The said SLPs are registered as Civil Appeal No(s).
1082-1083/2017 titled
Neena Jain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
& Anr and are pending adjudication. Other petitions arising out of
the same judgement/order of the Allahabad High Court are also listed along
with Neena Jain’s petition.
|
|
19.09.2017
|
The counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) 7489/2012 submitted before the High Court of Delhi that
he may be permitted to adopt the arguments addressed by the petitioner No.1
(Petitioner herein) in W.P. (C) 516/2010.
|
|
07.01.2019
|
The Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi by way of the common judgement dated
07.01.2019 dismissed the W.P. (Civil) 516 of 2010 filed by the petitioner
herein as also W.P.(C)-7489/2012.
|
|
01.04.2019
|
Shri Mahender Yadav filed a
petition in this Hon’ble Court against the common impugned judgement dated
07.01.2019 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi which is later registered
as SLP(C)
No. 8602 of 2019 titled Mahender Yadav
vs. Union of India & Anr. This petition is filed without any
supporting documents.
|
|
10.04.2019
|
The Petitioner herein files a
petition against the judgement dated 07.01.2019 in W.P. (C) 516/2010 passed
by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi which is later registered as SLP(C) No. 12277 of
2019.
|
|
11.04.2019
|
The SLP(C)
No. 8602 of 2019 titled Mahender
Yadav vs. Union of India & Anr is dismissed in limine by this Hon’ble Court.
|
|
05.07.2019
|
Finance minister Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman in her Budget
speech stated that “Current rental laws are archaic and do not address the
relationship between the lessor and the lessee realistically and fairly” and
that a new model tenancy act would be finalised and circulated soon.
|
|
11.07.2019
|
Ministry of
Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India uploads draft Model Tenancy
Act, 2019 on its website for circulation/comments/suggestions. A
press-release issued by the Ministry makes it clear that this Model Tenancy
Act will be applicable prospectively and will not
affect the existing tenancies.
|
|
22.07.2019
|
The SLP(C)
No. 12277 filed by the petitioner herein is dismissed in limine. The SLP was not listed as per the current roster of
this Hon’ble Court but before the bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun
Mishra which had earlier dismissed SLP(C) No. 8602 of 2019.
|
|
21.08.2019
|
Hence this Review Petition invoking justice, equity, parity and good conscience.
|
(INHERENT JURISDICTION)
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2198 OF 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
|
|
Shobha
Aggarwal,
Versus
|
Petitioner
|
|
1.
|
Union of
India through
Secretary,
Ministry of
Urban Development,
Government
of India, Nirman Bhawan,
Maulana
Azad Road, New Delhi- 110011
|
…Respondent
No. 1
|
|
2.
|
Government
of National Capital Territory of Delhi,
through its
Chief Secretary,
I.P. Estate, ‘A’ Wing,
New Delhi-110002 |
…Respondent
No. 2
|
|
3.
|
Suman Jain,
|
… Respondent No. 3
|
|
4.
|
Seema
Khandelwal
|
… Respondent No. 4
|
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 12277 OF 2019
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH ORDER XLVII OF SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013, SEEKING REVIEW OF ORDER DATED 22.07.2019 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 12277 OF 2019
To,
THE
HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA
The Humble Petition of the Petitioner above-named
MOST RESPECTFULLY
SHOWETH:
1.
That
this petition seeks review of the order dated 22.07.2019 in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 12277 of 2019 whereby this Hon’ble Court had dismissed the
said SLP in limine. The impugned order is based on errors
apparent on the face of the record and subsequent information has come to light
non consideration of which will cause grave miscarriage of justice.
2.
That
the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
12277 of 2019 was filed against the judgement/order dated 07.01.2019 passed by
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 516 of 2010. That
by way of the impugned judgement, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the
Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the constitutional validity
of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Petitioner had challenged the vires of
the DRC Act as being violative of the fundamental rights, particularly those
contained in Articles 13, 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3.
That
for the sake of brevity the averments made in the Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 12277 of 2019 are not reiterated herein but they may be taken as
part and parcel of the present petition.
4.
That
on the day of the hearing fixed i.e. 22.07.2019 the Hon’ble Court orally
observed that we have already dismissed one petition from the same order and we
have to be consistent. The Petitioner who was appearing in person was not permitted
to bring the pertinent facts before the Hon’ble Court in respect of the already
dismissed SLP which has led to grave miscarriage of justice.
5.
The petition the Hon’ble Court was referring to was SLP(C) No. 8602 of 2019 titled Mahender Yadav vs. Union of India & Anr. which was dismissed in limine by this Hon’ble Court on
11.04.2019.
6.
It
is submitted that the SLP(C) No. 8602 of 2019 was
presumably filed with a view to preempt the outcome of the petition filed by
the petitioner herein. That the petitioner herein had filed a petition
challenging the constitutional validity of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (impugned Act/DRC Act) in 2010 and was
diligently pursuing the same. One Shri Mahender
Yadav, the petitioner in SLP(C) No. 8602 of 2019
filed a copycat writ petition in Delhi High Court in 2012 only after the
petition filed by the petitioner herein got admitted and some media attention
ensued. The petition filed by Shri Mahender
Yadav in the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi was registered as W.P. (C)-7489/2012. That an inspection conducted of the
said case file by the petitioner herein revealed that Shri Mahender Yadav’s petition in the High Court of
Delhi was filed without any documents and supporting data. In fact the counsel
of Shri Mahender Yadav had made a categorical statement on 19.09.2017 before the
High Court of Delhi that he will adopt the arguments made by the petitioner
herein.
7.
Though
the petitioner herein has been unable to inspect the records of SLP(C) No. 8602 of 2019 filed by Shri Mahender Yadav but
as per the Supreme Court website no application for filing additional documents
was filed along with the SLP. Therefore the inescapable inference is that while
considering SLP(C) No. 8602 of 2019 this Hon’ble Court had no supporting
material/data before it on which a prima facie opinion on the issue could be
formed. It was
dismissed with the observation: “No case is made out to interfere with the impugned
order(s) passed by the High Court”.
8.
The SLP(C) No. 8602 of 2019 appears to be a subterfuge to
subvert the outcome of the Special Leave Petition of the petitioner herein.
9.
That the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12277 of 2019 filed by the petitioner
herein was listed before the same bench which had dismissed the SLP(C) No. 8602 of 2019 on 11.04.2019 seemingly because
both of SLPs arose out of the same common judgement dated 07.01.2019 of the
High Court of Delhi.
10. That according to
the roster of the work
for fresh cases, notified under the order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
w.e.f. 01.07.2019 the SLP filed by the
petitioner herein should not have been listed before this bench but should have
been listed before any of the six benches notified for Rent Act Cases.
11. It is most
respectfully submitted that the preexisting bias in mind of the Hon’ble Court –
as it had already dismissed one SLP arising out of the same judgement – precluded
the Hon’ble Court from giving a fair hearing to the petitioner herein. The
Hon’ble Court failed to objectively analyze the extensive material placed
before it which prime facie showed that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is
violative of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India; and
even though it is a special legislation it does not give effect to the present
day policy of the Government.
12. It is pertinent to
mention here that even before the petitioner herein could make her submissions
before the Hon’ble Court an order was passed dismissing the Special Leave Petition.
13. It is most
respectfully submitted that if such bogus petitions like SLP(C) No. 8602 of
2019 are allowed to determine the outcome of genuine petitions then people’s
faith in the justice delivery system will get eroded.
14. That several petitions
on the issue of constitutionality of various state rent acts as detailed in the
List of Dates are already pending adjudication before this Hon’ble Court. The
legal issues involved in all the petitions are identical. This makes the impugned order
manifestly arbitrary and unjust. On the grounds of parity and consistency a
similar petition filed by the Petitioner herein relating to Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 also deserves to be heard.
15. That
after the filing of the SLP (C) 12277/2019 the Finance minister Ms. Nirmala
Sitharaman in her Budget speech on 05.07.2019 inter alia stated that
“Current rental laws are archaic and do not address the relationship between
the lessor and the lessee realistically and fairly” and that a new model
tenancy act would be finalised and circulated soon.
16. However the draft Model Tenancy Act,
2019 uploaded by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India
on its website for circulation/comments/suggestions on 11.07.2019 has no
provision to include existing tenancies under its purview. A press-release
issued by the Ministry makes it further clear that the Model Tenancy Act will be applicable prospectively and will not affect the
existing tenancies.
17. From the foregoing it is apparent
that the Government of India while admitting that the existing rent control
acts are archaic is not willing to take steps to undo the historical injustice
meted out to the landlords whose properties are stuck under Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 for generations.
18. Under the above facts and
circumstances it is submitted that in case the
present petition is not allowed, then it would cause grave miscarriage of
justice.
19. That no other review
petition has been filed by the Petitioner.
PRAYER
It is
therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a. Review the order dated 22.07.2019
passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12277 OF
2019;
b. Direct this petition to be listed
before the appropriate roster bench;
c. For
costs of this petition;
d. Pass such other orders or
directions as may be deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE
PETITIONER AS IS DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY
(SHOBHA
AGGARWAL)
Filed on: 21 August, 2019 Petitioner-in-person
New Delhi
I
