Manjit Khanna v. Tarlok Singh

ORDER

03.12.2009 petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been by the landlady against the order of the Additional Rent Controller I dismissing the petition for eviction filed by her under Section 14(i)( e) of the Delhi I Act, 1958,while considering the application of the respondent/tenant for leave tp defend the petition for eviction. I i The procedure followed by the Additional Rent Controller is found contrary I to Sectioni 37 of the Act which is set out hereunder:- I

¶37Procedure to be followed by Controller.- (1) No order which prejudicially affects any person shall be made by the Controller under this Act without giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the order proposed to be made and until his objection, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same have been considered by the Controller. I

(2) Subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the Controller, shall, while holding an inquiry in any proceeding before him, follow as far as may be the practice and procedure of a Co$ of Small Causes, including the recording of evidence. RC.REV. Page I of2 Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

(3) In all proceedings before him, the Controller shall consider the question of costs and award such costs to or against any party as the Controller considers reasonable. counsel for the respondent/tenant has sought to justify the order by that the petition for eviction can be dismissed under order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Admittedly, there was no application under Order 7 Rule 11 ofthe CPC. Moreover, for that purpose only the petition for eviction has to be seen. from a bare perusal of the petition for eviction, it cannot be said to be I not disclosing a cause of action or to be barred by any law. No opportunity/notice was also given to the petitioner/landlady that the petition Tor eviction was being considered on merits. Th6 counsel for the respondent has sought to raise other arguments, I however, the same are on the merits of the case. Without any opportunity having been given to the petitioner/landlady to lead evidence, Section 3 7 bars the order as i has been imade by the Additional Rent Controller. It is not the case of the I I • that the petitioner/landlady had made a statement that the petition be i decided without leading any evidence. I Acbordingly, the order of the Rent Controller being not in accordance with law, this succeeds and the order in so far as dismissing the petition for i eviction is'! set aside. However, the same shall be read as granting leave to defend to the respondent tenant to contest the petition for eviction. The parties to appear I before the 1!Rent Controller, Rohini on 21st December, 2009 who shall either try the I case or mark the same for trial to the Court of any other Additional Rent Conttoller. ! The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. i I DECE:M::aER 03, 2009/gsr I RC.REV. 5212008 ·sAHAI ENDLA W, J Page 2 of2

* IN THE IDGH COURT OF DELID AT NEW DELID + RC.REV. 52/2008 MANJIT KHANNA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma with Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocates versus T A!RLOK SINGH ..... Respondent % ' CORAM: Through: Mr. L.D. Adlakha with Mr. K.S. Bana, Advocates HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI END LAW