Balkishan Sharma vs Mithlesh Gupta
1998 Latest Caselaw 365 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The learned Additional Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on the ground specified under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to contest.

2. The petitioner has filed this revision petition, challenging the impugned order on numerous grounds. One of the grounds that is canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the entire proceedings under the Act are without jurisdiction. It is urged that as per the eviction petition, the premises were constructed in the year 1992. By virtue of Section 3(d) of the Act, it would not have any application to premises constructed after commencement of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 for a period of 10 years. *

3. Learned Counsel fairly states that this objection had not been taken in the application for leave to contest before the Additional Rent Controller.

4. Mr. Deepak Gupta enters appearance on behalf of the respondent and opposes the petition on the ground that such objection was never taken before even though available and petitioner be deemed to have accepted and submitted to the jurisdiction under D.R.C. Act.

5. In my view, the objections as to lack of inherent jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. After some arguments, Counsel for the parties accept that the Delhi Rent Control Act would not apply to the premises in question, by virtue of Section 3(d) of the Act for a period of 10 years from the date of construction, which has been given as 1992. As such it would be open for the respondent to seek his remedies against the petitioner in civil law. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside for lack of jurisdiction.

6. The revision petition is allowed in the above terms.