Vipin Kumar Gupta v. Ntdhi Gupta

1. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for setting-aside the impugned eviction order dated 3^^^ February, 2010 passed in eviction petition bearing No.E-236/2009 filed by the respondent under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act. Along with the revision petition, the petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay of 1289 days in filing the revision petition. Another application, which is also filed along with the petition, is for condonation of delay of 12 days in re-filing the present petition.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner is the maternal brother of the husband of the respondent who is the owner/landlord of the premises bearing No.C- 9/71, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053 (hereinafter referred to as "Suit Premises"). The petitioner is the tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of?2500/- since 25^^^ February, 2006. RCR No.338/2013 Page 1 of[3] 2013:DHC:8536 m-

3. When the specific question was asked to the learned counsel for the petitioner about the delay of 1289 days in filing the present revisionpetition, the only answer was that the petitioner was not aware about the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent. It was only in the month of May, 2013 when the petitioner received notice in the execution proceedings from the Court of Ms.Suchi Laler, Administrative Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karkardooma, Courts, Delhi that the petitioner came to know about the eviction petition filed by the respondent.

4. On merits, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises. In order to claim the ownership, the house-tax receipts were referred by the petitioner filed along with the present revision petition. It is stated by the petitioner that since the property tax was being paid by the petitioner, therefore, the said evidence shows that the petitioner has interest in the suit premises.

5. On a specific query raised about any title document in favour of the petitioner, the answeris "No", except the house-tax receipts produced by the petitioner. There is also nojustification given by the learned counselfor the petitioner at the time of hearing of the petition that it is specifically mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner was served with the notice of the eviction petition tlirough registered post as well as ordinary process on 16^^^ November,'2009 and no leave to defend application was filed by the respondent within the statutory period of 15 days, except, the statement was made that the petitioner was not aware about the said proceedings. As per the service report, it was mentioned that Mr.Vipin Kumar had refiised to take summons and one copy thereof was also pasted on the spot. The only explanation given by the petitioner is that the said RCRNo.338/2013 Page 2 of[3] report is false and incorrect and no summon was pasted at the residence of the petitioner.

6. It is not denied that both the parties are related to each other. The learned trial Court while passing the eviction order on 3'"^ February, 201,0 has specifically referred that the respondent was served with the notice of the petition on 16^^^ November, 2009 and no application for leave to defend was filed. There is hardly any justification given by the petitioner during the course of the argiunents either with regard to service of summons or showing any sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1289 days mfiling the present revision petition. As far as the claim ofthe petitioner that he is tlie owner ofthe suit premises is concerned, the same is also untenable in the absence ofany valid document on record.

7. The present petition has no force. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 lOl JUDGE