Jasvinder Singh vs Ramesh Kumar Jain
2010 Latest Caselaw 221 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

             + RC. REV. 8/2010 and CMs 783-784/2010

                                                Decided on 15.01.2010

IN THE MATTER OF :

JASVINDER SINGH                                          ..... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate with
                        Mr. Jivendra Katoch, Advocate

                  versus

RAMESH KUMAR JAIN                                       ..... Respondent
                        Through: Mr. Vijay Wadhwa, Advocate

CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
        be allowed to see the Judgment?               No.

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?        No.

     3. Whether the judgment should be
        reported in the Digest?                       No.


HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is directed against the order dated

13.08.2009, by which the application for leave to defend filed by the

petitioner/tenant in a petition preferred by the respondent/landlord under

Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act was

dismissed and an eviction order passed in favour of the respondent.

2. The only argument urged on behalf of the petitioner to assail the

impugned order is that the learned Additional Rent Controller erred in not

appreciating that the eviction petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary

parties. Though a copy of the eviction petition has not been filed on the

record, counsel for the petitioner hands over a copy thereof, which is taken

on the record. He draws the attention of this Court to column 14 of the

eviction petition to state that the names of all the legal heirs of Late Shri

Jagjeet Singh, the original tenant have not been furnished by the

respondent. A perusal of column 3(b) of the eviction petition shows that the

name of the petitioner has been specifically indicated against the name and

address of the tenant. Furthermore, the aforesaid stand of the petitioner has

to be examined in the light of his stand as taken by him in the leave to

defend application filed by him in the court below. Counsel for the petitioner

fairly concedes that no such defence was taken by him, in the leave to

defend application. The petitioner cannot seek to assail the impugned order

on a ground which was never urged before the learned Additional Rent

Controller.

3. Taking into consideration the fact that this Court is required to

examine the impugned order in the light of the averments made in the leave

to defend application and in view of the fact that for the reasons best known

to the petitioner, he did not take any such ground in the leave to defend

application as sought to be taken now, the petitioner cannot be permitted to

improve upon his case at this belated stage. The petitioner is deemed to

have waived any such objection to the maintainability of the eviction petition

and is estopped from taking such a plea in the revision petition. No other

ground has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner to assail the

impugned order.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was incumbent for the

respondent to have disclosed the correct facts and having failed to disclose

the names of other legal heirs of Late Shri Jagjeet Singh, he would face

difficulty at the time of executing the impugned eviction order. This also

cannot be a ground for interference in the impugned order.

5. In these circumstances, it is held that the impugned order dated

13.08.2009 does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity,

which deserves interference. The appeal is dismissed as being devoid of

merits, alongwith the pending applications.

                                                             (HIMA KOHLI)
JANUARY 15, 2010                                               JUDGE
rkb