Full Text
Translation output
A-14 to 16
% 06.09.2011
Present : Mr.Anuj Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.M.Issap Advocate for the respondent.
+C.M.(M) No.1005/2009
C.M. (M) No.1007/2009
RC. REV. No. 1/2009
*
The present dispute is between the landlord and a tenant.
The landlady Gurbachan Kaur has filed a petition under Section
14(1 )(D) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC) against her tenant
Joginder Singh.
Vide order dated 31.10.2008, the defence of the tenant had been struck off as he had not filed his written statement within the stipulated time. The written statement has been directed to be filed within 15 days from 31.07.2008; it was, however, filed even after the extended period of 90 days i.e. on 03.11.2008; the extended period of 90 days had expired on 31.10.2008. The contention of the tenant is that his counsel was a resident of
Badarpur; the counsel was not well. The written statement had been prepared in advance but in these circumstances the same could not be filed within the said stipulated period. On 31.10.2008 the defence of the defendant was accordingly struck off. This is one order which has been impugned before this Court.
The review petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.10.2008 had been dismissed on 28.04.2009; Court was of the view that there was no error on the face of the record in the
If
2011:DHC:15977
:2: order dated 31.10.2008. This is the second order impugned.
Since, the dispute involved relates to a landlady and tenant, a valuable right would be lost to the tenant if he is not permitted to file his defence; on a specific guery, counsel for the parties have pointed out that PW-1 is yet under his cross-examination and next date fixed before the ARC is 07.12.2011.
In the interest of justice and in view of the averments made in the present petition as also explanation furnished by the counsel for the petitioner orders dated 31.10.2008 and 28.04.2009 are modified; written statement filed by the tenant i.e. Joginder Singh be taken on record.
This order is subject to payment of Rs. 15,000/- as cost.
Learned counsel for the landlady Gurbachan Kaur has also impugned the order of ARC dated 31.07.2008 vide which leave to defend had been allowed in favour of the tenant and he had been granted permission to file his written statement. In view of the aforenoted factual scenario this petition it has now become infructuous.
The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of petition under Section 14 (1) (d) of the DRC as expeditiously as possible.
With these directions all the aforenoted petitions are disposed of.
:3:
C.M.No.13324/2009
C.M.No.13339/2009
Since, the petitions are disposed of accordingly, ail the pending applications also stand disposed of. j r
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 06, 2011 mr
% 06.09.2011
Present : Mr.Anuj Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.M.Issap Advocate for the respondent.
+C.M.(M) No.1005/2009
C.M. (M) No.1007/2009
RC. REV. No. 1/2009
*
The present dispute is between the landlord and a tenant.
The landlady Gurbachan Kaur has filed a petition under Section
14(1 )(D) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC) against her tenant
Joginder Singh.
Vide order dated 31.10.2008, the defence of the tenant had been struck off as he had not filed his written statement within the stipulated time. The written statement has been directed to be filed within 15 days from 31.07.2008; it was, however, filed even after the extended period of 90 days i.e. on 03.11.2008; the extended period of 90 days had expired on 31.10.2008. The contention of the tenant is that his counsel was a resident of
Badarpur; the counsel was not well. The written statement had been prepared in advance but in these circumstances the same could not be filed within the said stipulated period. On 31.10.2008 the defence of the defendant was accordingly struck off. This is one order which has been impugned before this Court.
The review petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.10.2008 had been dismissed on 28.04.2009; Court was of the view that there was no error on the face of the record in the
If
2011:DHC:15977
:2: order dated 31.10.2008. This is the second order impugned.
Since, the dispute involved relates to a landlady and tenant, a valuable right would be lost to the tenant if he is not permitted to file his defence; on a specific guery, counsel for the parties have pointed out that PW-1 is yet under his cross-examination and next date fixed before the ARC is 07.12.2011.
In the interest of justice and in view of the averments made in the present petition as also explanation furnished by the counsel for the petitioner orders dated 31.10.2008 and 28.04.2009 are modified; written statement filed by the tenant i.e. Joginder Singh be taken on record.
This order is subject to payment of Rs. 15,000/- as cost.
Learned counsel for the landlady Gurbachan Kaur has also impugned the order of ARC dated 31.07.2008 vide which leave to defend had been allowed in favour of the tenant and he had been granted permission to file his written statement. In view of the aforenoted factual scenario this petition it has now become infructuous.
The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of petition under Section 14 (1) (d) of the DRC as expeditiously as possible.
With these directions all the aforenoted petitions are disposed of.
:3:
C.M.No.13324/2009
C.M.No.13339/2009
Since, the petitions are disposed of accordingly, ail the pending applications also stand disposed of. j r
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 06, 2011 mr
JUDGMENT