Sh. Mohd. Shakir Hussain v. Smt. Aamna Begum

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 2014:DHC:4297 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

(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