Full Text
Translation output
v
*
+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
RC. REV. 83/2OII
BHAGWAN SINGH
Through:
SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
Through:
DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. U.S. Chaudhary, Advocate
+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
RC. REV. 83/2OII
BHAGWAN SINGH
Through:
SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
Through:
DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. U.S. Chaudhary, Advocate
VERSUS
..... Respondent
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
!
,h
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
!
,h
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
L9.04.20t1
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent- landlord had concealed a very material fact from the trial Court that his son was running his own business and in the eviction petition it was claimed that he was jobless and doing nothing. This, according to the counsel for the petitioner amounts to playing fraud upon the Court and therefore, the impugned order having been obtained by the respondent-landlord by playing fraud upon the Court is liable td be set aside. It is also submitted that the fact that the respondent's son was running his own business came to the knowledge of the petitioner subsequent to the passing of the impugned order whereby petitioner's application seeking leave to defend the eviction petition was rejected and therefore, this fact could not be brought to the notice of the trial Court. It is contended that in case the petitioner is permitted to approach the trial Court with a plea that the impugned order had been obtained by the respondent-landlord by practicing fraud upon
Court by concealing the aforesaid material fact this petition can be disposed of as not pressed.
RC. REV.83t20tr Pase I of 2
2011:DHC:18575
L9.04.20t1
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent- landlord had concealed a very material fact from the trial Court that his son was running his own business and in the eviction petition it was claimed that he was jobless and doing nothing. This, according to the counsel for the petitioner amounts to playing fraud upon the Court and therefore, the impugned order having been obtained by the respondent-landlord by playing fraud upon the Court is liable td be set aside. It is also submitted that the fact that the respondent's son was running his own business came to the knowledge of the petitioner subsequent to the passing of the impugned order whereby petitioner's application seeking leave to defend the eviction petition was rejected and therefore, this fact could not be brought to the notice of the trial Court. It is contended that in case the petitioner is permitted to approach the trial Court with a plea that the impugned order had been obtained by the respondent-landlord by practicing fraud upon
Court by concealing the aforesaid material fact this petition can be disposed of as not pressed.
RC. REV.83t20tr Pase I of 2
2011:DHC:18575
., Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord appearing on advance notice and also as a caveator submits that Section 25r^ (9) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 gives a remedy of review to the petitioner and so he has no objection if the petitioner is permitted to move review application or any other application before the Rent Controller and as and when it is filed the respondent-landlord would contest the same.
This petition is disposed of as not pressed. The petitioner would be at
Iiberty to approach the Rent Controller but it is made clear that it would be open to the Rent Controller to pass any order in accordance with the law as and when any application is filed before it by the petitioner and filing of the present
Revision petition and its not being pressed today shall not be taken into consideration while dealing with that application.
'b APRIL l9,20lllpg
P.K. BHASIN.J
RC. REV. 83t20tl Pase? of2
2011:DHC:18575
This petition is disposed of as not pressed. The petitioner would be at
Iiberty to approach the Rent Controller but it is made clear that it would be open to the Rent Controller to pass any order in accordance with the law as and when any application is filed before it by the petitioner and filing of the present
Revision petition and its not being pressed today shall not be taken into consideration while dealing with that application.
'b APRIL l9,20lllpg
P.K. BHASIN.J
RC. REV. 83t20tl Pase? of2
2011:DHC:18575
JUDGMENT