Delhi High Court
Ved Prakash vs Achint Kumar on 24 August, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Review Petition No. 469/2012 with CM 14464/2012
for stay in CM(M) 1183/2011
Date of Decision: 24.08.2012
VED PRAKASH ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate
with Ms Ruchi Jain and Mr.
Sharfaraj Ahmad, Advocates.
Versus
ACHINT KUMAR ...... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
1. This review petition along with application for stay are filed in
respect of the order dated 25.07.2012 of this Court. Vide this order the
petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution
against order dated 30.08.2011 of the learned District & Sessions Judge-
cum-Rent Controller (RCT) dismissing the appeal filed against the order
dated 07.02.2011 of Additional Rent Controller (ARC), was dismissed.
2. In the petition that was filed by the respondent against the
petitioner under Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 14(2) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act'), the application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner before the ARC, came to be
dismissed as not maintainable by the ARC. The said order was carried in
appeal before the RCT which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
The order of the RCT was challenged in the instant petition which came
to be dismissed by this Court on 25.07.2012.
3. The review application is filed stating that the petitioner had been
paying the rent to the respondent and had paid him against receipts for
the period from 10.08.2007 to 10.10.2007 and thereafter without
receipts for period 10.10.2007 to 09.11.2007; but had still remitted
amount of Rs.4315/- on 19.11.2007 in compliance of demand notice
dated 13.11.2007.
4. It has been stated that, that being so, no triable issue was involved
in factual as well as legal aspect as has been observed by this Court in
order dated 25.07.2012 and thus, the remand of the case to the Court of
ARC was unwarranted. Predicated on these grounds, the petitioner has
sought review of order of this Court dated 25.07.2012.
5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
6. It may be noted that the plea of the petitioner that the petitioner
had been paying rent to the respondent and had also paid Rs.4315/- in
compliance of the demand notice of 13.11.2007, have been dealt with by
this Court in the said order. Vide the said order the petition of the
petitioner had been dismissed and has not been remanded as has been
stated by the petitioner in the review application. While dismissing the
petition it has also been observed that it could not be said that no cause
of action survived, meaning thereby that no case was set up by the
petitioner warranting the rejection of the eviction petition under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC. The scope of consideration of application under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC was limited to the plaint and not to the defence of the
defendant (petitioner herein). The scope of examination by this Court of
the order of the Courts below in the petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution, was limited and there being no infirmity or illegality in the
orders of the Courts below observing that no case was made out for
rejection of plaint, the petition was dismissed vide order dated
25.07.2012.
7. I do not see any error or mistake or reason set up for review of the
said order. Both, Review Petition as well as application for stay being
CM 14464/2012 stand dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
AUGUST 24 , 2012
awanish
