Delhi High Court
Shri Om Parkash vs Ms. Anita & Anr. on 15 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. REV. No. 305/2014
% 15th September, 2014
SHRI OM PARKASH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate.
VERSUS
MS. ANITA & ANR. ...... Respondents
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.15211/2014 (condonation of delay)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 30 days in re-
filing the petition is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
+ RC. REV. No.305/2014 and C.M.No.15210/2014 (stay)
2. This is a petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the impugned
order dated 15.4.2014 by which the Additional Rent Controller has granted
RCR No.305/2014 Page 1 of 3
leave to defend. No petition is maintainable under Section 25-B(8) of the
Act and actually this petition ought to have been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India and therefore at the request of the counsel for the
petitioner, this petition is treated as a petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
3. A reading of the impugned order shows that the
respondent/tenant in the leave to defend application gave details of three
properties being fourth floor in the building adjoining to the tenanted
premises, three floors in a 75 sq yds property at 118 Bazar Lane, Bhogal and
the third property is situated at Govindpuri which were said/pleaded to be
alternative suitable premises for the landlord.
4. As regards this aspect, the Additional Rent Controller in para 7
of the impugned order has given the following observations:-
"7. As far as the question of alternate accommodation is concerned,
even though, the petitioner has admitted owning 4th floor in the
adjoining building, the same is stated to be not suitable for his wife, as
she is suffering from various ailments, documents as regards which
have been placed on record. However, qua Church Lane property, the
petitioner has not made any specific admission/denial on affidavit
with respect to his ownership of the said property. Again, as far as
Govindpuri premises is concerned, the petitioner has contended that it
is not 'fit' for residential purposes without disclosing any specific
reasons as to why the same is not suitable for habitation."
5. I asked the counsel for the petitioner that where is the reply to
RCR No.305/2014 Page 2 of 3
the leave to defend application, and to which it is conveniently stated that
the copy of the reply to the leave to defend application was not available and
hence the same was not filed in this Court. In my opinion, the non-filing
must be in view of the observations of the Additional Rent Controller that
there is no specific explanation given by the petitioner/landlord with respect
to the two alternative properties and consequently the leave to defend
application was allowed. In fact I would like to add that the son of the
petitioner can surely stay in the adjoining property on the fourth floor and
residence in different floor is immaterial as the tenanted premises are also on
the different floor being the ground floor than where the family of the
petitioner resides.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the leave to defend
has rightly been allowed by the impugned order. The petitioner, is not
seriously prejudiced, as in any case, he will have complete liberty during the
course of trial to prove his case.
7. Dismissed as no case is made out for exercise of my
extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2014/Ne VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
