Jagjit Singh Chadha vs M.J. Sharma
1987 Latest Caselaw 59 Del

JUDGMENT

Sunanda Bhandare, J.

(1) The petitioner instituted a petition for eviction of the respondent from the ground floor of property no. F-120 Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi comprising of one room, kitchen and bath-cum- latrine under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondentnetition was granted leave to defend and contest the said petition. On 11-9-85 when the case was listed for the evidence of the petitioner, a prayer was made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner for an adjournment on the ground that the petitioner was out of India. The Additional Rent Controller however refused to grant adjournment and closed the evidence of the petitioner and since there was no evidence in support of the averments in the petition also dismissed the main petition. It is this order of the Addl. Rent Controller which has challenged by the petitioner in this revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Act.

(2) After the petition was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller the petitioner moved an application under Order 47, Rule I read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for review of the said order and judgment which application was also dismissed on 30th July 1986.

(3) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is true that the petition was filed as far back as in the year 1980 but it was not the petitioner who was responsible for the delay in disposal of the petition and in fact the petitioner was keen on getting the petition disposed of early because of his bona fide need of the premises in question. Several dates were given during the course of these five years for various reasons ; on some date the Presiding Officer was on leave, on some date the respondent sought time or in some date some documents were not available. He submitted that only on three dates it was the petitioner who prayed for time. Learned counsel submitted that on 28th March 1985 the Additional Rent Controller directed that the petition be listed for the evidence of the petitioner on 11th September 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner had gone to the United Kingdom where he fell ill and could not remain present on the date fixed. Therefore, a request was made for an adjournment. The situation was beyond the control of the petitioner and the ground for adjournment was bona fide and there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to delay the proceedings. It was, therefore, submitted that the Additional Rent Controller ought to have considered the hardship and ground for non-appearance of the petitioner of non-production of the evidence of the petitioner on 11th September 1985 passing the impugned order.

(4) On behalf of the respondent, it was firstly contended that no revision lies against an order of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing an eviction petition. It was secondly contended that once the petitioner had filed a review petition before the Additional Rent Controller, the present revision petition was not maintainable. Learned counsel referred to sub-section (9) of Section 25-B of the Act in support of this contention. Thirdly, it was contended that even after the impugned order was passed there was delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the review petition as well as the present revision petition and the petitioner has not explained this delay and, therefore, the revision petition should not be entertained. It was lastly contended that the case was being adjourned time and again and the respondent was being harassed for no fault of his and. therefore, the Additional Rent Controller was right in closing the evidence of the petitioner and dismissing the eviction petition since there was no evidence in support of the averment in the petition.

(5) The question of maintainability of a revision petition by a landlord against an order dismissing the eviction petition is well-settled. The Supreme Vinod Kumar Chowdhry v. Narain Devi, 1980 Rajdhani Law Reporter (SC) 159 has held that a revision against an order dismissing a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is maintainable. Therefore, there is no force in the first contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. There is also no force in the second contention of the learned counsel for the respondent because sub-section (9) of Section 23-B of the Act states that where no application has been made to the High Court on revision, the Controller may exorcise powers of review in accordance with the provisions of Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908. This means that once an application under sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Act is moved to the High Court no review would lie before the Additional Rent Controller. But this does not mean that if a review application is filed and dismissed, no revision would lic to the High Court.

(6) Now coming to the question of delay. From the order dated 30ih July 1986 passed by the Additional Rent Controller on the review application filed by the petitioner, I find that this application was not dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller on the ground of delay but was dismissed on the ground that the court of Additional Rent Controller had become functus office so far as the order regarding the closure of evidence of the petitioner was concerned. Within one month of this order the petitioner moved the present revision petition in this Court. There is, therefore, no force in the third contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the revision petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay.

(7) Now coming to the last submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. On perusal of the record and the order sheet in the main case before the Additional Rent Controller I find that on three dates i.e. 21st July 1983, 17th May 1984 and 11th September 1985 the petitioner had sought adjournment for producing his evidence. However, on other dates the case was adjourned for no fault of the petitioner. When the case was listed for the evidence of the petitioner on 28th March 1985, the witness of the petitioner was present, however he could not be examined because the records were not available and a date for six months thereafter i.e. 11th September 1985 was fixed. However, on 11th September 1985 the petitioner could not appear because he fell ill in a foreign country and could not reach India. The petitioner was naturally not in a position to know on 28-3-85 that he will be falling ill on 11th September 1983. This happens because long dates are given due to paucity of time available with the court. The court must, therefore, consider a request for adjournment without being unduly exercised by the fact that the case had been pending for a long time. No doubt, old cases have to be disposed of expeditiously but the disposal cannot be at the cost of justice and the plea of a party to the petition must be considered on merits before it is disallowed. If it had been found by the Additional Rent Controller that the adjournment sough for was for bona fide reasons, mere pendency the petition for long time could be no ground for refusing an adjournment. In my opinion, in the present case the Additional Rent Controller erred in refusing an adjournment without considering the bona fides and genuineness of the plea of the counsel for the petitioner and consequently closing the evidence and dismissing the eviction petition. I think the interest of justice would be served by giving the petitioner an opportunity to lead his evidence.

(8) In the result the petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 11th September 1985 is set aside. The parties will appear before the Additional Rent Controller on 23rd February 1987. The Additional Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the eviction notation according to law after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence. No costs.