Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Fine Perforators vs Smt. Jagjit Kaur & Ors on 27 September, 2022
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 153/2022 & CM APPL. 30541/2022
M/S FINE PERFORATORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. (appearance not given), Adv.
(Through VC)
versus
SMT. JAGJIT KAUR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Madhu Sudhan Bhayana, Adv.
(Through VC) with Mr. Asish
Nischal, Mr. Arun Nischal and Mr.
Rinku Shah, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
ORDER
% 27.09.2022
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 24.02.2022, passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. 503/2021. The said order reads as under:
"Summons sent to R-1 received back with the report that he has expired on 22.11.2021.
Summons served upon R-2 physically on 11.12.2021. Application with documents filed on behalf of R-2 u/o 37 Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for entering appearance as well as seeking leave to defend and contest the eviction petition filed by the petitioners with supporting affidavit.
However, this application is not as per the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act because it should have been filed u/s Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:01.10.2022 15:44:12 25-B (4) & (5) of the DRC Act.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, same is being considered as leave to defend application filed on behalf of R-2 u/s 25-B (4) & (5) of the DRC Act.
Reply of the same with supporting affidavit has already been filed by counsel for the petitioners through email ID of the Court on 23.02.2022. Printout of the same is taken out and placed on record. Counsel for me petitioners is directed to file the same physically in the Court on or before the NOOH .
However, leave to defend application has been filed on behalf of R·2 on 03.01.2022, i.e. after the expiry of statutory time period of 15 days from the date of service upon the respondent.
At this stage, Counsel for the petitioners submits that he has moved an application u/o 22 Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC with supporting affidavit through email ID of the Court on 23.02.2022. Printout of the same is already on record. However, this application is not proper.
At this stage, Counsel for the petitioners submits that he wishes to file an appropriate application under correct Order and Rule of CPC.
In view of Circular No. 4648-4858/DJ/(HQ)/Covid Lockdown/Physical Courts Roster/2022 dated 11.02.2022, now list the matter for further proceedings/withdrawal of application u/o 22 Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC on
02.05.2022."
2. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that the application of the petitioner seeking leave to defend is still pending before the concerned ARC and the same is yet to be decided finally.
3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that there is no final determination in the said impugned order with regard to any aspect of the matter.
4. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the present petition is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:01.10.2022 15:44:12 disposed of, with a direction to the concerned ARC to decide the application of the petitioner seeking leave to defend, after considering all aspects of the matter, including the issue as to whether leave to defend application has been filed after expiry of statutory time period.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as to the merits of the matter.
SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 27, 2022/ssc Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RADHA BISHT Signing Date:01.10.2022 15:44:12