Sh. Yash Pal vs Champa Lal Charoria& Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4071 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                           RC. REV.No. 251/2010


+                                   Date of Decision: 23rd August, 2011



#     SH. YASH PAL                                       ...Petitioner
!                          Through: Mr. Rajinder Singh Negi, Advocate


                                 Versus

$      CHAMPA LAL CHARORIA& ORS.           ....Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate


       CORAM:
*      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN

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)


                              ORDER

P.K BHASIN,J:

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner - tenant under

Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the order

dated 09.09.10 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby

an eviction order was passed against him in respect of house no. 7601,

plot no. 8, Ram Nagar, Delhi in the eviction case filed against him by the

respondents-landlords under Section 14 (1) (e) on the ground of their

bona fide requirement of the same.

2. Since the eviction petition had been filed on the ground of bona

fide requirement of the respondents herein in respect of the tenanted

premises in occupation of the petitioner herein, summons under Section

25 - B(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act were ordered to be served upon

the petitioner by the trial Court returnable for 25 th October, 2009. Before

that date, however, the respondents served upon the petitioner a notice

dated 1st August, 2009 through an advocate in which he was informed

about the filing of the present eviction case as well as the aforesaid date

before the trial Court. It was also mentioned in the notice that the

petitioner was required to apply for leave to defend the eviction petition

within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice of the eviction petition.

On receipt of the said legal notice, the petitioner instead of waiting for

the receipt of summons from the Court chose to appear before the trial

Court on 29th October, 2009. On that date the learned trial Court after

noticing the process server's report that the petitioner - tenant had

remained unserved with the summons got him delivered the copy of the

eviction petition and the supporting documents from the respondents'

counsel. Thereafter the petitioner was informed to file the leave to

defend application within stipulated time. The petitioner - tenant,

however, did not move any application seeking leave to defend the

eviction petition within the statutory period of 15 days as provided under

Section 25 - B (4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. On 9th February, 2010

the respondents moved an application under Section 25 - B (4) informing

the trial Court that the petitioner - tenant had failed to seek leave to

defend the eviction petition within 15 days from 29 th October, 2009, on

which date he was deemed to have been served with the summons of the

eviction petition because of his appearance in Court and so it was prayed

that eviction order should be passed. Notice of that application was

issued to the petitioner - tenant for 31st March, 20110 on which date also

he appeared before the trial Court and sought permission to make his

submissions in the matter. The case was then adjourned to 13th April,

2010 by the trial Court on which date the trial Court recorded the

following proceedings:-

"13.4.2010

Present: None for the petitioner Respondent in person.

Respondent submits that on 29.10.2009 when he appeared in the Court for the first time, the petitioner supplied the documents regarding the present petition. Respondent further submits that he appeared in the court as a notice dated 01.08.2009 was received by him of some Advocate Ramesh Kumar. Respondent further submits that all the documents which have been placed on record by the petitioner are all forged. Respondent further submits that the petition is not maintainable at all. At this stage respondent submits that the petition should not be dismissed but the same be transferred as the present matter is a criminal matter. Respondent further submits that the documents placed on record by the petitioner regarding the property are forged. Respondent again submits that the petition is forged. A reply has also been filed by the respondent. Respondent further submits that the advocate signed the petition on 31.3.2010 in the court. It is seen that on 25.01.2010, when I was on leave, the matter was fixed for 06.05.2010. Thereafter on 09.02.2010 an application was moved by the petitioner u/o 25-B(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Notice of the application was issued to the respondent and the respondent appeared on 31.3.2010 and the matter was fixed for order for today. As the date had already been

fixed as 06.05.2010, it would not be appropriate to pass any order before this date.

Appropriate order will be passed on 06.05.2010.

(SAMEER BAJPAI) CCJ-CUM-ARC (CENTRAL) THC/Delhi :13.04.2010"

3. Thereafter, the learned Additional Rent Controller vide impugned

order dated 9th September, 2010 passed an eviction order against the

petitioner - tenant since he had failed to file leave to defend application

within the stipulated time of 15 days from 29th October, 2009.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the passing of the eviction order against him

the petitioner - tenant filed the present revision petition. It was

contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner - tenant that even

though he had appeared before the trial Court on 29th October, 2009 but

he was not formally served with the summons of the eviction petition as

per the Schedule 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act nor was he specifically

informed by the trial Court that leave to defend application was to be

moved within 15 days from that date. It was further contended that the

petitioner - tenant being an uneducated person did not follow as to what

was meant by "within stipulated period", as was recorded by the trial

Court in its proceedings of 29th October, 20009 and, therefore, the

impugned eviction order having been passed against the petitioner

without giving him an opportunity to seek leave to defend the eviction

petition is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted

that no fault can be found with the impugned eviction order inasmuch as

the petitioner - tenant was given notice of the eviction petition in Court

itself by the learned Additional Rent Controller when he had appeared

before him on 29th October, 2009 and was required to file leave

application within the stipulated time which he failed to do. It was also

submitted that the petitioner's plea that he did not know as to what was

the stipulated period during which he was expected to move leave to

defend application cannot be accepted for the reason that when in

response to the notice issued to him by the trial Court of the application

filed by the respondents under Section 25-B(4) to the effect that eviction

order should be passed because of his failure to file leave to defend

application within 15 days from 29th October, 2009 he had appeared in

Court on 31st March, 2010 he did not take this plea and, therefore, it is

clear that it is only an afterthought and taken only to prolong the matter.

6. It was submitted by counsel for both the parties that after filing of

the present petition the respondents had taken the possession of the

tenanted premises through execution proceedings.

7. After having considered the rival submissions of the counsel for

the parties I am of the view that no fault can be found with the impugned

order of the learned trial Court. Notice of the eviction petition was given

to the petitioner - tenant by the trial Court in Court on 29th October, 2009

when he had appeared in Court and there could not be a more fool proof

service of notice upon the petitioner and I am in agreement with the

submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that petitioner's

plea that he did not know as to within what period from 29 th October,

2009 he was to move leave to defend application is an afterthought since

no such plea was taken by him before the trial Court when he had

appeared there on 31st October, 2010 in response to the notice issued to

him of the respondents' application under Section 25-B(4) of the Delhi

Rent Control Act or subsequently also.

8. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this revision petition and any

reason to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of revisional

jurisdiction. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

P.K. BHASIN,J

August 23, 2011 nk/sh