Full Text
Through SHRI DEEPAK SAWHNEY
Through ..... Respondent
"/, 09.11.2009 This revision petition under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 is preferred by the tenant with respect to the order dated l8th August, 2009 of the Addl. Rent Controller. The respondent had filed a petition for eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act with respect to a shop in the tenancy of the petitioners. It appears that the application for leave to defend was filed beyond prescribed period and accompanied with an application for condonation of delay.
The said application for condonation of delay was dismissed by the trial court as not maintainable and consequently'an order for eviction passed against the petitioners
No f'ault can be found with the order of the trial court dismisSing as not maintainable the application for condonation of delay in filing the leave to defend.
The appropriate remedy for the petitioners was to upply under Order 37 Rule 4 of the CpC as held by the Division Bench in Mohd. Quresh Vs. Roopa Fatedar ILP.
JUDGMENT
1990 Delhi 16 and in Prithipat Singh Vs Satpat Singh MANU/DE/9518/2006. No such application appears to have been filed' 40. ,1. , i\ 1/ RC.REV.TOT/2009 2009:DHC:9249 - > Though the remedy of revision under Section 25 B (S) is also available but in the order impugned there is no discussion whatsoever as to the merits of the application for leave to defend. In the circumstances, it is deemed expedient that the petitioners avail the remedy available to them of moving an application under order 37 Rule 4 of the cPC before the Addl. Rent Controller and in disposal whereof the Addl. Rent Controller would be required to go into the question not only of whether the petitioners/tenants were prevented for reasonable cause from applying for leave to defend within the prescribed time but also whether the application for leave to defend discloses any ground and also whether any special circumstances exist for the order of eviction to be set aside. While going through the papers, it also transpires that of the three petitioners against whom the petition for eviction is stated to have been filed, the petitioners No.2&3 namely Shri Devasheesh Sachdeva & Shri Rishabh Sachdeva are minors. No order appointing their guardian appears to have been made' The Addl. Rent Controller to also examine as to whether'the order of eviction could have been made against the said minors without an order appointing anyone as their guardian. This petition is accordingly disposed of for aforesaid reasons with liberty to the petitioners to apply to the Addl. Rent Controller as aforesaid' mam petition, this application has become SAHAI ENDLAW, J zt CM A. No.15774l2009 (u/S 151 CPC for exemption)' Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM A. No.15773l2009 (u/S 151 CPC for stav)' With the disPosal of the infructuous and is disPosed of. NOVEMBER 09' 2009/PP RC,REV.l07/2009 2009:DHC:9249
JUDGMENT