Shri Suraj Bhan vs Shri Vijay Prakash Bhardwaj
2014 Latest Caselaw 4294 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          CM(M) No.616/2014

%                                                     9th September, 2014

SHRI SURAJ BHAN                                               ......Petitioner
                           Through:      Mr. Dinesh Kapoor, Advocate.




                           VERSUS



SHRI VIJAY PRAKASH BHARDWAJ                                  ...... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.10404/2014 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

+ C.M.(M) No.616/2014 and C.M. No.10403/2014 (stay)

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

impugns the order of the trial court dated 10.5.2014 by which the trial

court/Rent Controller has dismissed the application filed by the

petitioner/tenant to recall the judgment and decree dated 2.7.2012 passed in

a bonafide necessity petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958 on account of the petitioner/tenant not filing the leave to

defend application in time.

3. Supreme Court in the judgment 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 in filing of the leave to

defend application, and once no leave to defend application is filed, then,

contents of the petition are deemed to be admitted under Section 25-B(4) of

the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and which has therefore to be decreed.

4. Argument urged on behalf of the petitioner/tenant that the fraud

vitiates everything will not help the petitioner because what cannot be done

directly cannot be done indirectly i.e what should have been urged on merits

as grounds in the leave to defend application for not decreeing the eviction

petition and permitting the petitioner/tenant to contest the petition, once the

same cannot be looked into, then such grounds cannot be urged by filing of

an application to recall the judgment and decree i.e once the leave to defend

application itself cannot be considered as it was time barred, then, grounds

for getting leave to defend cannot be urged by collateral proceedings.

5. Dismissed.

SEPTEMBER 09, 2014                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne