Full Text
Translation output
'b.,--,, --l- ..... Petitioner ..... Respondents
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV.367l20rr HARBANS LAL CHAKRAWARTI
Through: Mr. N.S. Bajwa & Mr. Anil Sharma, Advs.
KRISHNA RANI & ANR
Through: None
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV.367l20rr HARBANS LAL CHAKRAWARTI
Through: Mr. N.S. Bajwa & Mr. Anil Sharma, Advs.
KRISHNA RANI & ANR
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN 'i . ORDER o 13.09.2011
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant.
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Additional
- Rent Controller whereby his application rurder Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed in the eviction petition which was filed against him by the respondent herein under
Section la (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act has been rejected as being not maintainable because of his failwe to seek leave to defend the eviction petition within the prescribed period from the date of receipt of summons of the eviction petition.
.
The admitted position is that on getting the summons of the eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) the petitioner-tenant did not move any application seeking leave to defend that petition. Instead, he chose to move an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which has been rejected by the learned trial Court and as a consequence of his failure to seek leave to defend the eviction petition eviction order has been passed against him.
The learned trial Court has held that the challenge to the ownership of the
' respondent-landlord could be made only in the leave to defend application and that not having been done this plea could not be raised in an application under
Order 7 Rule 1l CPC.
RC.REV.36712011 Page I of2 2011:DHC:16080 '(i
4vt -2' As far as the present revision petition is concerned, I, in any event do not find any merit in the same since the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner could have taken all grounds of challenge in his application for leave to defend the eviction petition and not otherwise. I do not find this conclusion of the learned trial Court to be in any way not in accordance with the law.
This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner now seeks the liberty to approach the learned Additional Rent Controller with an application for leave to defend accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the same.
As far as the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner that he may be given liberty to approach the learned Additional Rent Controller now for moving an application for leave to defend is concerned, I am of the view that it is for the petitioner to decide whatsoever course of action he wants to take after dismissal of the present revision petition and no liberty is required to be sought from this
Court and if any such application is moved before the trial Court the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
P.K. B SEPTEMBER 13, 20lllpg ih RC.REV.367l20rr Pase 2 of 2
2011:DHC:16080
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant.
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Additional
- Rent Controller whereby his application rurder Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed in the eviction petition which was filed against him by the respondent herein under
Section la (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act has been rejected as being not maintainable because of his failwe to seek leave to defend the eviction petition within the prescribed period from the date of receipt of summons of the eviction petition.
.
The admitted position is that on getting the summons of the eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) the petitioner-tenant did not move any application seeking leave to defend that petition. Instead, he chose to move an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which has been rejected by the learned trial Court and as a consequence of his failure to seek leave to defend the eviction petition eviction order has been passed against him.
The learned trial Court has held that the challenge to the ownership of the
' respondent-landlord could be made only in the leave to defend application and that not having been done this plea could not be raised in an application under
Order 7 Rule 1l CPC.
RC.REV.36712011 Page I of2 2011:DHC:16080 '(i
4vt -2' As far as the present revision petition is concerned, I, in any event do not find any merit in the same since the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner could have taken all grounds of challenge in his application for leave to defend the eviction petition and not otherwise. I do not find this conclusion of the learned trial Court to be in any way not in accordance with the law.
This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner now seeks the liberty to approach the learned Additional Rent Controller with an application for leave to defend accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the same.
As far as the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner that he may be given liberty to approach the learned Additional Rent Controller now for moving an application for leave to defend is concerned, I am of the view that it is for the petitioner to decide whatsoever course of action he wants to take after dismissal of the present revision petition and no liberty is required to be sought from this
Court and if any such application is moved before the trial Court the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
P.K. B SEPTEMBER 13, 20lllpg ih RC.REV.367l20rr Pase 2 of 2
2011:DHC:16080
JUDGMENT