Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Smt. Ram Wati vs Sh. Shiv Lakhan Prasad on 29 January, 2011

                                            1

     IN   THE   COURT  OF  SH.  PRITAM  SINGH,  ARC  (CENTRAL) TIS 
                        HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
                                       E­211/10


Smt. Ram Wati, 
W/o Late Sh. Babu Ram,
R/o E­11, Tagore Road Line.
Minto Road, New Delhi                                             ... Petitioner
                                      Versus.


Sh. Shiv Lakhan Prasad, 
S/o Late Sh. Chander Mehto,
R/o E­11, Tagore Road Line,
Minto Road, New Delhi­02.                                    ... Respondent.


             Petition U/s 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act.


1. Date of institution of the case              :    21.08.2010
2. Date of Judgment Reserved                    :    29.01.2011
3. Date of Judgment pronounced                  :    29.01.2011


JUDGMENT

The brief fact as stated in the petition are that the petitioner is the landlord and owner of the premises No. E­11, Tagore Road Line, Minto Road, New Delhi.

2. It is stated that the respondent/tenant is a bad paymaster in the payment of rent and has neither paid nor tendered whole of arrears of rent 2 to the petitioner w.e.f 01.09.2008. The respondent is not paying rent since 01.09.2008. A notice dated 29.05.2010 was sent through counsel of the petitioner through Registered A.D post and thereafter asked the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 39,100/­ the arrears of rent w.e.f 01.09.2008 to 31.07.2010. The notice was duly served upon the respondent but the respondent neither paid the arrears of rent nor replied the notice till date. The tenancy of the respondent has already been terminated by the petitioner. The notice was sent to the respondent as provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The respondent/tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date of which a notice of demand for arrears of rent has been served on him, and as such the respondent is liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises.

3. It is further stated that petitioner many times asked the respondent to vacate the premises under his tenancy but he failed to vacate the tenanted premises.

4. It is further stated that the tenanted premises is required bonafide by the petitioner for occupation as a residence for herself and her family members dependent on her. Her son recently was married. The petitioner has no other property. The petitioner is having two rooms only, her daughter is also residing with her, a separate room is required by 3 her son and daughter­in­law for residential purpose.

5. Respondent was served on 12.11.2010 and an application U/s 25­B Sub Section 5 for leave to defend filed on behalf of the respondent on 18.01.2011 alongwith application U/s 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay filed. Counsel for the respondent submits that the leave to defend application could not be filed within time as respondent has rushed to his native place due to accident of his brother and his mother was also not well therefore delay may kindly be condoned. Counsel for petitioner submits that respondent was served on 12.11.2010 and inspected the file on 18.11.2010 despite that leave to defend application not filed within time. Counsel for petitioner further submitted that the respondent cannot file leave to defend application beyond the period of 15 days from the date of his service and the provision Limitation Act also not applicable.

6. Respondent not filed the application for leave to defend, as prescribed under the law, within 15 days from the date of the service of summons. There is delay of more than 50 days. It is well settled law, that delay in filing of leave to defend application cannot be condoned. Section 25­B (4) of DRC Act provides that the tenant shall not contest the prayer for eviction unless he files an affidavit stating the ground on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the controller. The said sub­section further provides in default of appearance 4 in pursuance of the summons or obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the application shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the said ground.

7. As the respondent has not filed an affidavit seeking leave to defend the present petition in time, it is deemed that he has admitted the eviction petition and the eviction petition is allowed. An eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w 25­B of DRC Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of premises No. E­11, Tagore Road Line, Minto Road, New Delhi more specifically shown in the red color in the site plan Ex. C­1 (exhibit today while passing the order). It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the eviction order executed before the expiry of six month running from today. No order as to costs.

File be consigned to Record Room.


 

(Announced in the open court 
on 29.01.2011)                                                        (Pritam Singh)
                                                                   ARC/Central/Delhi