Delhi District Court
Vishnu Mishra vs Surender Sharma on 5 May, 2018
In the Court of Sh. Puneet Pahwa : Additional Rent Controller02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
MU21/16
New No. 36/16
In the matter of:
Vishnu Mishra
S/o Late Sh. Phool Chand Shastri
R/o 313/93A, Ground Floor,
Main Road, Tulsi Nagar
Delhi-35. ................... Petitioner
VERSUS
Surender Sharma
S/o Late Swaroop Sharma,
R/o 313/93A, Ground Floor,
Main Road, Tulsi Nagar
Delhi-35. ................... Respondent
Date of Institution : 23.11.2016
Date of Arguments : 21.04.2018
Date of Judgment : 05.05.2018
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER
SECTION 45 (1) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958.
JUDGMENT:
1. This is an application sub-section (1) of section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 59 of 1958') made by petitioner against respondents for recovery of possession MU-21/16 Vishnu Mishra Vs. Surender Sharma 1/3 of premises i.e. 313/93A, Tulsi Nagar, Delhi-35 more specifically shown red in the site plan annexed with the application.
3. The summons of the application was sent to the respondent and the respondent was served on 21.02.2017, but he failed to appear before the court. Therefore, the respondent was proceeded Exparte on 03.05.2017 and thereafter, the matter was posted for Exparte Petitioner's Evidence.
4. In support of his case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1. PW1 during his examination in chief tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/2. Evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed on 24.02.2018 and matter was taken up for Exparte Final Arguments.
5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and has gone through the material on record carefully.
6. The petitioner has stated on oath that he is a tenant in respect of one shop forming part of premises no. 313/93A, Tulsi Nagar, Delhi35 and the respondent is the landlord thereof. With a view to compel the petitioner to vacate the premises, the respondent has disconnected / withheld electricity supply to the demised premises. The electricity is an essential amenity and the respondent has withheld the same without any just cause or justification.
7. In support of his case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1. In his evidence affidavit, the petitioner (PW1) reiterated and re MU-21/16 Vishnu Mishra Vs. Surender Sharma 2/3 affirmed the facts of his petition. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondent opted not to appear before the court despite the service and even do not care to file the statement of his defence and ultimately, vide order dated 03.05.2017, he was proceeded exparte. The evidence led by the petitioner remained unchallenged and uncorroborated. There is nothing on record to make me to disbelieve the same.
8. Accordingly, the present petition u/s 45 (1) of DRCA is hereby allowed and the respondent is directed to restore the electricity supply to the shop in question which is at the ground floor forming part of premises no. 313/93A, Tulsi Nagar, Delhi35 shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition.
As the respondent remained exparte and does not contest the application, therefore, there shall be no order as to costs. It is ordered accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2018.05.05
16:24:27 +0530
Announced in the open court (Puneet Pahwa)
on this 05th May, 2018 Additional Rent Controller
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
MU-21/16 Vishnu Mishra Vs. Surender Sharma 3/3