Sh.Mohd. Shakir Hussain vs Smt. Aamna Begum
2014 Latest Caselaw 4066 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          R.C.Rev. No. 286/2014
%                                                     1st September, 2014

SH.MOHD. SHAKIR HUSSAIN                                  ......Petitioner
                  Through:               Mr. Hemant Kumar, Adv.


                           VERSUS

SMT. AAMNA BEGUM                                            ...... Respondent
                           Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CM No. 14241/14(Exemption)

1.    Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

      CM stands disposed of.

CM No.14243/14(delay of 66 days in refiling)

2.    For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.


R.C.Rev. No. 286/2014& CM No.14242/2014(stay)

3.    Counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment, but in the facts of the

present case no adjournment can be granted including for the reason that if the

                                                                                Page 1 of 3

RCR 286/2014
 counsel was not well and he did not want to argue the case, the case should not

have been brought up for hearing as an admission matter.


4.    The challenge by means of this petition is to the impugned order of the

Additional Rent Controller dated 12.3.2014 by which the Additional Rent

Controller has decreed the bonafide necessity petition under Section 14(1)(e) of

the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as the

leave to defend application was not filed in the prescribed period of 15 days.


5.    The Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh

(dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 has held that there cannot be

condonation of delay of even one day beyond the statutory period of fifteen

days fixed for filing of the leave to defend application. Once there is no leave

to defend application, the contents of the eviction petition are deemed to be

admitted in view of Section 25(B)(4) of the Act, and hence the eviction petition

has to be decreed.


6.    In the present case, the aspect with regard to service of the summons to

the petitioner/tenant is noted in para 3( v) of the impugned order dated

12.3.2014 and which reads as under:-


      "3.      xxxxxxxxxx



                                                                                 Page 2 of 3

RCR 286/2014
       (v) Summons were duly served on the respondent through his wife on
      24.01.2014. The matter was taken up on 1.2.2014. On the said date,
      respondent alongwith his counsel appeared in court. However, no leave
      to defend application was filed by the respondent. The matter was again
      posted for 5/3/2014. On 5/3/2014, instead of filing the leave to defend
      the respondent submitted that his counsel is not available. The matter
      was posted for 12.03.2014 in as such much as the petitioner had moved
      an application praying therein that eviction order be passed on account
      of non-filing of leave to defend application within the stipulated period
      of time (I may note that the said application was also titled as an
      application on behalf of the petitioner u/s 25-B(4) of DRC Act"). The
      said fact was also stated in the ordersheet dt. 5/3/2014 and matter was
      adjourned for 12/3/2014. On 12/03/2014, the leave to defend has been
      filed by the respondent."
7.    In view of the fact that the petitioner was served and did not file any

leave to defend application within the prescribed statutory period, the

Additional Rent Controller was justified in decreeing the eviction petition in

view of the ratio in the case of Prithipal Singh(supra).


8.    Dismissed.




SEPTEMBER 01, 2014                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib

RCR 286/2014