Full Text
Translation output
;{
*
'r
IN TIIE HIGH COURT
RC.REV. 161120II
IDRIS AHMAD
Through:
ARIF KI{AN & ANI].
OF DELI.II AT NIIW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. Mahendra Singh & Mr. Sunder Lal
Juneja, Advocates
VEISUS..... ResPondents
Mr. (appearance not given), Advocate
^,, I
Through:
'r
IN TIIE HIGH COURT
RC.REV. 161120II
IDRIS AHMAD
Through:
ARIF KI{AN & ANI].
OF DELI.II AT NIIW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. Mahendra Singh & Mr. Sunder Lal
Juneja, Advocates
VEISUS..... ResPondents
Mr. (appearance not given), Advocate
^,, I
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MIT. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
OITDER
'h 16.08.2011
I have heard leamed counsel fol the parties.
The petitioner-tenant challenges the order datcd 24tr' Februaty, 2010 passcd by the learned Adclitional Rent Controller whereby an eviction order has bcen passed against hirn in lespect of the tenanted prernises in the eviction petitiol fiied by the respondents under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act.
The only ground raised in this petition is that eviction order has been passed against the petitioner without serving hirn with any notice of the eviction petition.
A perusal of the trial Court record, which was sent for, shows that Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocate had entered appearance in the case before the trial
Court on 24tt'July, 2009 by filing his vakalatnama as well as an application for inspection of the trial Court record. This fact is not being disputed by counsel for the petitioner. It appears that since as per the leport on the summons of the petition for 5tl' October, 2009 the petitioner had remained unsered the learned
Additional Itent Controller ignored the afolesaid appearance having been put in on behalf of thc petitioner-tenant on 24tt'July, 2009. Thereafler, fresh summons were sent to the petitioner-tenant for 6tl' Novemb er,2009 and he himself had
''a\a
RC.REV.l6l/2011 Page I of2
2011:DHC:15760
OITDER
'h 16.08.2011
I have heard leamed counsel fol the parties.
The petitioner-tenant challenges the order datcd 24tr' Februaty, 2010 passcd by the learned Adclitional Rent Controller whereby an eviction order has bcen passed against hirn in lespect of the tenanted prernises in the eviction petitiol fiied by the respondents under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act.
The only ground raised in this petition is that eviction order has been passed against the petitioner without serving hirn with any notice of the eviction petition.
A perusal of the trial Court record, which was sent for, shows that Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocate had entered appearance in the case before the trial
Court on 24tt'July, 2009 by filing his vakalatnama as well as an application for inspection of the trial Court record. This fact is not being disputed by counsel for the petitioner. It appears that since as per the leport on the summons of the petition for 5tl' October, 2009 the petitioner had remained unsered the learned
Additional Itent Controller ignored the afolesaid appearance having been put in on behalf of thc petitioner-tenant on 24tt'July, 2009. Thereafler, fresh summons were sent to the petitioner-tenant for 6tl' Novemb er,2009 and he himself had
''a\a
RC.REV.l6l/2011 Page I of2
2011:DHC:15760
L reportodly received the summons. In this petition, it has been stated and it has been argued also by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-tenant was never served and the counsel in fact had submitted that the report on the summons showing personal service upon the petitioner-tenant is a forged, fabricated and manipulated report and therefore, based on that report no eviction order should have been passed.
After having noticed the fact that the petitioner-tenant had already entered appearance in the matter before the trial Court I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of the process server's report in respect of service of summons upon the petitioner on 4tl' November, 2009, which has been accepted by the learned
Additional Rent Controller. The petitioner-tenant having failed to move the trial
Court for seeking leave to defend the eviction petition, the trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned eviction order. I find no merit in this petition and therefore. it is dismissed.
P.K. BHASIN, J
AUGUST l6,20Illpg
:h
RC.REV. 16r/2011 Pase2 of2
2011:DHC:15760
After having noticed the fact that the petitioner-tenant had already entered appearance in the matter before the trial Court I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of the process server's report in respect of service of summons upon the petitioner on 4tl' November, 2009, which has been accepted by the learned
Additional Rent Controller. The petitioner-tenant having failed to move the trial
Court for seeking leave to defend the eviction petition, the trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned eviction order. I find no merit in this petition and therefore. it is dismissed.
P.K. BHASIN, J
AUGUST l6,20Illpg
:h
RC.REV. 16r/2011 Pase2 of2
2011:DHC:15760
JUDGMENT