Sh. Hari Kishan vs Mohan Lal
2011 Latest Caselaw 5171 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Judgment: 20.10.2011


+             CM (M) No. 1224/2011 & CM No. 19372-73/2011

SH. HARI KISHAN                                  ...........Petitioner
                            Through:   Mr. Gyan Mitra, Advocate.

                       Versus


MOHAN LAL                                        ..........Respondent
                            Through:   None

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                 Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. The order impugned before this Court is the order dated

03.09.2011 which had dismissed the application filed by the

tenant seeking a review of the judgment dated 30.10.2009. On

30.10.2009, the eviction petition filed by the landlord under

Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been

decreed; the application for leave to defend filed by the tenant

had been dismissed. This order dated 30.10.2009 was the subject

matter of the review petition; this review petition had been

preferred on 03.09.2011 which was admittedly much after the

prescribed period of limitation. It was un-accompanied by any

application seeking condonation of delay. That apart on merits,

the impugned order has correctly noted that the judgment dated

30.10.2009 in no manner suffers from any infirmity.

2. Record shows that the petitioner Mohan Lal was the owner

of the suit premises; the respondent had been inducted as a

tenant about 20 years ago; after the death of her mother, the

petitioner had become owner of the suit property; this was by

virtue of GPA, sale deed and gift deed; it is also not in dispute

that the respondent was paying rent to him and rent receipts were

being issued up to 31.03.2008.

3. Even in the application for leave to defend status of the

petitioner as owner was not disputed; these facts were noted in

the correct perspective in the judgment dated 30.10.2009. There

is also no dispute to the proposition that in an eviction petition the

relationship of landlord-tenant is the relevant crux. The ground on

which review had been sought of the judgment dated 30.10.2009

was that the father of the tenant is a senior citizen aged 80 years;

he had suffered a hip injury and it would be difficult for him to

find another alternate accommodation; this did not fit into the

parameters and law laid down by the Legislature under Order

XLVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as

the 'Code'); the trial Court had rightly noted that these

submissions do not call for a review of judgment dated

30.10.2009. Neither was there any error apparent on the face of

the record and nor there any new fact which the petitioner inspite

of due diligence was not able to adduce; impugned order

dismissing the review petition thus does not suffer from any

infirmity. This petition is without any merit.

4. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

OCTOBER 20, 2011 a