Delhi High Court
Sh. Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. vs Sh. Subhash Kumar Gupta And Anr. on 27 August, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. REV. No.270/2013 and C.M. No.11556/2013 (stay)
% 27th August, 2014
SH. SANJEEV GUPTA & ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.N. Gupta, Advocate.
VERSUS
SH. SUBHASH KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish K. Mehra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugns the order of the
Additional Rent Controller dated 4.7.2012 whereby an eviction order was
passed against the petitioners/tenants on account of there being only a formal
two para leave to defend application which gave no facts for granting leave
to defend. Petitioners/tenant also impugn the subsequent order dated
12.7.2013 by which the Rent Controller has refused to recall the eviction
order dated 4.7.2012.
RCR No.270/2013 Page 1 of 6
2. Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh
(dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 has held that the statutory period for
filing of leave to defend is sacrosanct and there cannot be condonation of
delay of even one day in filing of the leave to defend application. A learned
single Judge of this Court in the case of Ms. Madhu Gupta Vs. M/s.
Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd. 184 (2011) DLT 103 has held that there cannot be
filed an application for amendment of the leave to defend application after a
period of 15 days because that would amount to destroying the sanctity of
the 15 days period as stated in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra).
3. In view of the above, it is clear that whatever has to be stated by
a tenant for seeking leave to defend has to be stated within 15 days, and after
a period of 15 days, no application for leave to defend should be entertained
nor any additional affidavit or document be allowed to be taken on
record/considered or an application to amend the leave to defend application
be entertained on the ground that certain additional facts or documents are
required to be considered.
4. In the present case, on account of negligence of the Advocate of
the petitioners/tenant, only a memo of appearance alongwith a short
application for leave to defend supported by an affidavit was filed, and for
RCR No.270/2013 Page 2 of 6
the sake of convenience the said application and affidavits are reproduced as
under:-
"APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEARANCE ON BEHALF
OF THE RESPONDENTS
Hon'ble Sir,
The respondents most respectfully submit as under:
1. That the respondents have received the summons of this Hon'ble
Court on 27/04/2012.
2. That the respondents are causing their leave to appearance by way
of this application as well as their affidavits.
3. That the address of the respondents is given for future
correspondence purposes which is as under:
H.No.A-71, Vivek Vihar, Ph-II,
Delhi-110096.
ALSO AT:
M/s S.Kumar & Co.
Shop No. 3613 (Pvt. No.3),
Ground Floor, Faiz Bazar,
Netaji Subhash Marg,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi-11002.
4. That Vakalatnama in favour of the counsel for all the respondents
is also attached with this application.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the leave to appearance of
the respondents with Vakalatnama may kindly be taken on record,
in the interest of justice."
AFFIDAVITS
IN THE MATTER OF:
Subhash Kumar Gupta & Anr. ... Petitioners
Versus
Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. ... Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sh. Sanjiv Gupta S/o Late Sh. Satender Kumar Gupta, aged about 41
years., R/o H.No. A-71, Vivek Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi-110096, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:
RCR No.270/2013 Page 3 of 6
1. That I am Respondent No.1 in the above noted Eviction Petition
and fully conversant with the facts of the case thus competent to swear this
affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Leave to appearance has been drafted by
my counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same has been
understood by me which are true and correct, the same may kindly be read
as part and parcel of this affidavit which are not being reproduced herein
for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verification at Delhi on this 08th day of May 2012 that the contents
of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing
has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
.......
IN THE MATTER OF:
Subhash Kumar Gupta & Anr. ... Petitioners
Versus
Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. ... Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sh. Atul Gupta S/o Late Sh. Satender Kumar Gupta, aged about 40
years., R/o H.No. A-71, Vivek Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi-110096, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am Respondent No.2 in the above noted Eviction Petition
and fully conversant with the facts of the case thus competent to swear this
affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Leave to appearance has been drafted by
my counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same has been
understood by me which are true and correct, the same may kindly be read
as part and parcel of this affidavit which are not being reproduced herein
for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verification at Delhi on this 08th day of May 2012 that the contents
of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing
has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
........
IN THE MATTER OF:
Subhash Kumar Gupta & Anr. ... Petitioners
Versus
Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. ... Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sh. Pankaj Gupta S/o Late Sh. Satender Kumar Gupta, aged about 39
years., R/o H.No. A-71, Vivek Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi-110096, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am Respondent No.3 in the above noted Eviction Petition
and fully conversant with the facts of the case thus competent to swear this
affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Leave to appearance has been drafted by
my counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same has been
understood by me which are true and correct, the same may kindly be read
as part and parcel of this affidavit which are not being reproduced herein
for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verification at Delhi on this 08th day of May 2012 that the contents
of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing
has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
5. It is therefore clear that even if we take the leave to defend
application filed within 15 days, there are absolutely no reasons given or
facts stated in the application for leave to defend with supporting affidavit
by which leave to defend can be granted. Once there are no adequate facts
which are stated, contents of the eviction petition effectively would be
deemed to be admitted and consequently the respondents/landlords were
entitled to an eviction order in accordance with law and which has been done
by the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 4.7.2012.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenant very passionately
sought to argue that the judgment in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra)
does not apply, however, I fail to understand how the judgment in the case
of Prithipal Singh (supra) will not apply and especially taken with the ratio
of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ms.
Madhu Gupta (supra). I am bound by the ratio of the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ms. Madhu Gupta (supra)
which holds that there cannot be amendment to a leave to defend application
after a period of 15 days.
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the
same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AUGUST 27, 2014
Ne
