Kuldip Mehta vs Kapur & Co. And Ors.
1992 Latest Caselaw 148 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) Shri Kuldip Mehta petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under Section 14 read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act with respect to premises No. M-140 Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, in April, 1987 (being E-132/87) on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. An application seeking leave to defend was filed by the respondents and without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner with the consent of the Counsel for petitioner leave to contest was granted by the Addl. Rent Controller on 2710.1987. Since then the eviction petition is pending for disposal.

(2) In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has alleged he has no proper place to live and per force he has to reside along with his wife in a tent house on the terrace of his house and are at the mercy of the heat, the rain and the winter. The failure of the Addl. Rent Controller to piss orders for eviction and take subsequent circumstances into consideration and otherwise the manner in which the petition is proceeding is not only failure of jurisdiction and is wrong exercise of Jurisdiction which is denying the petitioner the benefit of his property and conferring upon the respondent unreserved bounty. He prayed that the order dated 27.10.1987 granting leave to defend may be revoked and order for forthwith eviction be passed.

(3) According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner It is neither the scheme of the Rent Act nor the purpose thereof that the house owner should be forced to live In a tenant while the multi-millioner person is allowed to oppress the house owner by claiming protections to be tenant under the Rent laws.

(4) The respondent contested the petition and filed a counter-affidavit. According to the learned Counsel the leave to defend once granted cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by the same Court. Moreover, in this case leave to contest was granted with the consent of the petitioner. There Is no jurisdictional error and therefore no relief under Article 227 of the Constitution can be given to the petitioner.

(5) The learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention towards various decisions of the Supreme Court in support of the contention that in bonafide need subsequent events may be taken into account if they are relevant on the question of release or possession of the premises in question but he has not been able to convince me that in the present circumstances of the case the leave to defend which was granted as far back as 27.10.1987 with the consent of the petitioner can be ordered to be withdrawn now when the evidence is being recorded on the friable issues. 530

(6) The only point which needs consideration in this case is whether any direction is needed from this Court for expeditious disposal of the eviction petition which was filed in April, 1987. A glance at the provisions of Chapter Iii A of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 shows that the policy and the purpose of the legislature in enacting Sections 25A, 25B and 25C Is to introduce expeditious procedure for trial where the landlords application for eviction is filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. Needless to say that such like eviction petitions should be disposed of expeditiously.

(7) In this case record shows that 30-10-1991 was fixed for the evidence of the petitioner but on that date the Addl. Rent Controller (Shri D.R. Singh) in whose Court the matter was pending was on leave and the case was adjourned to 2.7.92 by the following order : "Lawyers are on strike. Learned Presiding Officer is on leave. As directed by the Presiding Officer to come up for petitioner's evidence on 2.7.92."

(8) The main grievance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that adjourning the case for the remaining evidence of the petitioner for such a long period In the eviction petition filed in April, 1987 on bonafide requirement is not at all justified and in fact is denial of justice. It is also pointed out that the Addl. Rent Controller (D.R. Singh) is on long leave and no substitute has been provided in that Court. Adjourning the matter for recording the remaining petitioner's evidence for a period of eight months in an eviction petition filed on bonafide requirement in April, 1987 no doubt is unjustified. It is more unjustified in not posting a substitute in Rent Courts where the Presiding Officer proceeds on long leave. In such circumstances this Court in its supervisory capacity must intervene. The legislature was impatient with laws delays' and has therefore made provisions in Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act for expeditious disposal of applications for eviction filed on the ground of bonafide requirement by introducing Sections25A, and 25C In the Act.

(9) I therefore, 25B allow this petition only to the extent that this petition (B-132/87) Is withdrawn from the Court previously presided over by Shri D.R. Singh, Addl. Rent Controller and is transferred to the Court of the Rent Controller Delhi with the direction that he should dispose of this eviction petition expeditiously preferably within six months from today.

(10) A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar of this Court for taking necessary action in posting a substitute in the Court of the Addl. Rent Controller previously presided over by Shri D.R. Singh if he is still on long leave.