* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No.616/2014
% 9th September, 2014
SHRI SURAJ BHAN ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kapoor, Advocate.
VERSUS
SHRI VIJAY PRAKASH BHARDWAJ ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.10404/2014 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
+ C.M.(M) No.616/2014 and C.M. No.10403/2014 (stay)
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India CM(M) No.616/2014 Page 1 of 3 impugns the order of the trial court dated 10.5.2014 by which the trial court/Rent Controller has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/tenant to recall the judgment and decree dated 2.7.2012 passed in a bonafide necessity petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on account of the petitioner/tenant not filing the leave to defend application in time.
3. Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 has held that there cannot be condonation of delay of even one day in filing of the leave to defend application, and once no leave to defend application is filed, then, contents of the petition are deemed to be admitted under Section 25-B(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and which has therefore to be decreed.
4. Argument urged on behalf of the petitioner/tenant that the fraud vitiates everything will not help the petitioner because what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly i.e what should have been urged on merits as grounds in the leave to defend application for not decreeing the eviction petition and permitting the petitioner/tenant to contest the petition, once the same cannot be looked into, then such grounds cannot be urged by filing of an application to recall the judgment and decree i.e once the leave to defend CM(M) No.616/2014 Page 2 of 3 application itself cannot be considered as it was time barred, then, grounds for getting leave to defend cannot be urged by collateral proceedings.
5. Dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne
CM(M) No.616/2014 Page 3 of 3