Full Text
Translation output
ti -r HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV. 180/2011
SUKHBIR SINGH JAIN
DELHI
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate
RC.REV. 180/2011
SUKHBIR SINGH JAIN
DELHI
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate
VERSUS
PREM SAGAR GUPTA AND ORS
Through: None
Through: None
CORAM:
IION'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
" 18.05.2011 ..... Respondents
" 18.05.2011 ..... Respondents
RC.REV. 180/2011 and CM NO. 9807/2011 :
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord.
The petitioner - landlord had filed an eviction petition against the respondents - tenant in respect of the tenanted premises under Section 1 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The respondents filed an application before the learned Additional Rent Controller seeking leave to contest the eviction petition.
The leame,J Additional Rent Controller has vide impugned order dated llth
February,2011 granted the leave to the respondents to contest the eviction petition.
The petitioner - landlord has felt aggrieved and has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present revision petition under Section 25-
B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the leave application of the respondents should have been straightaway rejected since it had not been filed within the statutory period of 15 days from the date of receipt of summons by them. It was contended that the ,url-orrs were served on respondent no. 1, who is one of the joint-tenants along with other six respondents, by registered AD post on 3l't Octobel2009 and other respondents were served on 3'd November , 2009. Summons by ordinary process were served on 5th November,2009. As per the affidavit of respondent no. 1 filed before the trial
Court he had received one summon on 3ltt October,2009 and another on 6tl' nage I of2
(e tl I i I
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord.
The petitioner - landlord had filed an eviction petition against the respondents - tenant in respect of the tenanted premises under Section 1 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The respondents filed an application before the learned Additional Rent Controller seeking leave to contest the eviction petition.
The leame,J Additional Rent Controller has vide impugned order dated llth
February,2011 granted the leave to the respondents to contest the eviction petition.
The petitioner - landlord has felt aggrieved and has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present revision petition under Section 25-
B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the leave application of the respondents should have been straightaway rejected since it had not been filed within the statutory period of 15 days from the date of receipt of summons by them. It was contended that the ,url-orrs were served on respondent no. 1, who is one of the joint-tenants along with other six respondents, by registered AD post on 3l't Octobel2009 and other respondents were served on 3'd November , 2009. Summons by ordinary process were served on 5th November,2009. As per the affidavit of respondent no. 1 filed before the trial
Court he had received one summon on 3ltt October,2009 and another on 6tl' nage I of2
(e tl I i I
RC.REV.180/2011
2011:DHC:18599 - -a I November, 2009 while as per the affidavits of other six respondents they were served on 6tl' November , 2009). Counsel submitted that the period of limitation for filing the leave application commenced from the daie when for the first time summons wele received by respondent no. 1 and that even though other respondents had received the summons on a subsequent date but all of them being joint tenants service of summons on one of them on 31tt October, 2009 should have been treated as service of summons on each one, of the joint tenants and consequently the leave to defend application filed on 21T November,2009 should have been rejected as being time barred. On merits of the impugned order, learned counsel argued that the respondents had not made out any case for grant of leave to them to contest the eviction petition filed by the petitioner - landlord and a bare reading of the eviction petition, contents of which were not specifically refuted by the respondents, would show that the requirement of the petitioner in respect of the premises initially let out "to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents late Shri Arjun Dass Gupta was bonafide. l on going through the impugned order I do not find any material inegularity in that order justifying any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The impugned order shows that the trial Court has found that triable issues which require to be gone into in a regular trial have been raised by the respondent-tenant and this Court is in agreement with the view of the trial
Court. I also find no fault in the decision of the trial Court to entertain the joint leave application filed by the respondents herein on 2lllll09 which was undisputedly within fifteen days from the service of summons upon them since the respondent No.l had been served initially on 31/10/09 and then again on
6lll/09 he became entitled to file the leave application within 15 days from the date of receipt of summons by ordinary process on 06/11/09. So, this revision petition is dismissed in limine.
P.K. BHASIN,J > MAY 18,20L1./sh
2011:DHC:18599 - -a I November, 2009 while as per the affidavits of other six respondents they were served on 6tl' November , 2009). Counsel submitted that the period of limitation for filing the leave application commenced from the daie when for the first time summons wele received by respondent no. 1 and that even though other respondents had received the summons on a subsequent date but all of them being joint tenants service of summons on one of them on 31tt October, 2009 should have been treated as service of summons on each one, of the joint tenants and consequently the leave to defend application filed on 21T November,2009 should have been rejected as being time barred. On merits of the impugned order, learned counsel argued that the respondents had not made out any case for grant of leave to them to contest the eviction petition filed by the petitioner - landlord and a bare reading of the eviction petition, contents of which were not specifically refuted by the respondents, would show that the requirement of the petitioner in respect of the premises initially let out "to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents late Shri Arjun Dass Gupta was bonafide. l on going through the impugned order I do not find any material inegularity in that order justifying any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The impugned order shows that the trial Court has found that triable issues which require to be gone into in a regular trial have been raised by the respondent-tenant and this Court is in agreement with the view of the trial
Court. I also find no fault in the decision of the trial Court to entertain the joint leave application filed by the respondents herein on 2lllll09 which was undisputedly within fifteen days from the service of summons upon them since the respondent No.l had been served initially on 31/10/09 and then again on
6lll/09 he became entitled to file the leave application within 15 days from the date of receipt of summons by ordinary process on 06/11/09. So, this revision petition is dismissed in limine.
P.K. BHASIN,J > MAY 18,20L1./sh
RC.REV.180/2011 oage? of2
2011:DHC:18599
2011:DHC:18599
JUDGMENT