* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 27.01.2012
+ R.C.R. No.197/2010 & CM Nos.14991-92/2010
KANHAIYA LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.K.Srivastava, Advocate.
versus
USHA DEVI ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 17.04.2010 wherein the eviction petition filed by the landlady Smt. Usha Devi under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed in her favour. The application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had been dismissed. 2 It is not in dispute that the possession of the said premises has since been taken by the landlady and this has also been recorded in the order of this Court dated 30.03.2011. This petition is pending before this Court since 20.08.2010. The only contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petition RCR197/2010 Page 1 of 2 under Section 14-D was not maintainable as these premises had not been let out by the landlady herself or by her husband which is pre-requisite for eviction decree under Section 14-D of the DRCA; these premises had been let out by her father-in-law. Admittedly this argument now sought to be urged did not find mention in the application for leave to defend filed by the tenant. This argument not being a part of the pleadings cannot be raised now. The impugned order has not been assailed on any other ground. The impugned judgment calls for no interference as the argument now urged cannot be entertained at this stage not being a part of the pleadings. Petition is without any merit.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
JANUARY 27, 2012
A
RCR197/2010 Page 2 of 2