Delhi High Court
Sh. Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. vs Sh. Subhash Kumar Gupta And Anr. on 27 August, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. REV. No.270/2013 and C.M. No.11556/2013 (stay)
% 27th August, 2014
SH. SANJEEV GUPTA & ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.N. Gupta, Advocate.
VERSUS
SH. SUBHASH KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish K. Mehra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugns the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 4.7.2012 whereby an eviction order was passed against the petitioners/tenants on account of there being only a formal two para leave to defend application which gave no facts for granting leave to defend. Petitioners/tenant also impugn the subsequent order dated 12.7.2013 by which the Rent Controller has refused to recall the eviction order dated 4.7.2012.
RCR No.270/2013 Page 1 of 6
2. Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 has held that the statutory period for filing of leave to defend is sacrosanct and there cannot be condonation of delay of even one day in filing of the leave to defend application. A learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Ms. Madhu Gupta Vs. M/s. Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd. 184 (2011) DLT 103 has held that there cannot be filed an application for amendment of the leave to defend application after a period of 15 days because that would amount to destroying the sanctity of the 15 days period as stated in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra).
3. In view of the above, it is clear that whatever has to be stated by a tenant for seeking leave to defend has to be stated within 15 days, and after a period of 15 days, no application for leave to defend should be entertained nor any additional affidavit or document be allowed to be taken on record/considered or an application to amend the leave to defend application be entertained on the ground that certain additional facts or documents are required to be considered.
4. In the present case, on account of negligence of the Advocate of the petitioners/tenant, only a memo of appearance alongwith a short application for leave to defend supported by an affidavit was filed, and for RCR No.270/2013 Page 2 of 6 the sake of convenience the said application and affidavits are reproduced as under:-
"APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS Hon'ble Sir, The respondents most respectfully submit as under:
1. That the respondents have received the summons of this Hon'ble Court on 27/04/2012.
2. That the respondents are causing their leave to appearance by way of this application as well as their affidavits.
3. That the address of the respondents is given for future correspondence purposes which is as under:
H.No.A-71, Vivek Vihar, Ph-II, Delhi-110096.
ALSO AT:
M/s S.Kumar & Co.
Shop No. 3613 (Pvt. No.3), Ground Floor, Faiz Bazar, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-11002.
4. That Vakalatnama in favour of the counsel for all the respondents is also attached with this application.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the leave to appearance of the respondents with Vakalatnama may kindly be taken on record, in the interest of justice."
AFFIDAVITS IN THE MATTER OF:
Subhash Kumar Gupta & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. ... Respondents AFFIDAVIT I, Sh. Sanjiv Gupta S/o Late Sh. Satender Kumar Gupta, aged about 41 years., R/o H.No. A-71, Vivek Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi-110096, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:RCR No.270/2013 Page 3 of 6
1. That I am Respondent No.1 in the above noted Eviction Petition and fully conversant with the facts of the case thus competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Leave to appearance has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same has been understood by me which are true and correct, the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit which are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT VERIFICATION:
Verification at Delhi on this 08th day of May 2012 that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT .......
IN THE MATTER OF:
Subhash Kumar Gupta & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. ... Respondents AFFIDAVIT I, Sh. Atul Gupta S/o Late Sh. Satender Kumar Gupta, aged about 40 years., R/o H.No. A-71, Vivek Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi-110096, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am Respondent No.2 in the above noted Eviction Petition and fully conversant with the facts of the case thus competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Leave to appearance has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same has been understood by me which are true and correct, the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit which are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT VERIFICATION:
Verification at Delhi on this 08th day of May 2012 that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing has been concealed therefrom.RCR No.270/2013 Page 4 of 6
DEPONENT ........
IN THE MATTER OF:
Subhash Kumar Gupta & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. ... Respondents AFFIDAVIT I, Sh. Pankaj Gupta S/o Late Sh. Satender Kumar Gupta, aged about 39 years., R/o H.No. A-71, Vivek Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi-110096, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am Respondent No.3 in the above noted Eviction Petition and fully conversant with the facts of the case thus competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying Leave to appearance has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same has been understood by me which are true and correct, the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit which are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT VERIFICATION:
Verification at Delhi on this 08th day of May 2012 that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
5. It is therefore clear that even if we take the leave to defend application filed within 15 days, there are absolutely no reasons given or facts stated in the application for leave to defend with supporting affidavit by which leave to defend can be granted. Once there are no adequate facts which are stated, contents of the eviction petition effectively would be deemed to be admitted and consequently the respondents/landlords were RCR No.270/2013 Page 5 of 6 entitled to an eviction order in accordance with law and which has been done by the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 4.7.2012.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenant very passionately sought to argue that the judgment in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra) does not apply, however, I fail to understand how the judgment in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra) will not apply and especially taken with the ratio of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ms. Madhu Gupta (supra). I am bound by the ratio of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ms. Madhu Gupta (supra) which holds that there cannot be amendment to a leave to defend application after a period of 15 days.
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J AUGUST 27, 2014 Ne RCR No.270/2013 Page 6 of 6