Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. A brief exposition of the facts is that the Respondents herein filed Eviction Petition No.21/2013 before the Rent Controller, Saket Courts, Delhi seeking eviction of the Petitioner herein under Section 14 (1) Proviso (a) and

(e) of the DRC Act. During the pendency of the said petition objection was taken by the Petitioner that such a composite petition under the aforesaid two provisions was not maintainable which objection was refuted by the Respondents. Without prejudice to the contention, the Respondents in reply to the leave to defend application also prayed that if the Court was of the opinion that the composite petition was not maintainable then the eviction petition be treated as a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act and leave be granted to the partners to file a separate petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act. The Respondents herein had earlier challenged the order dated 31st January, 2014 of the learned ARC wherein it was held that the summary procedure as contemplated under Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act cannot be applied in the present case as the eviction petition was a composite petition under Sections 14 (1) (a) and 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act and thus there was no requirement of filing leave to defend application. On hearing the parties this Court vide its order dated 27th March, 2014 dismissed the petition of the Respondents on the following grounds:

11. Be that as it may it is not necessary for this Court to go further into this issue for the reason in the present case though a composite application under the DRC Act on more than one grounds was filed however, the procedure for an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) and 14 (1) (e) DRC Act being different and technical, to avoid the said complexity in case the Petitioner wants to withdraw the claim on one ground the same would be in the nature of a defect which would be technical in nature and a sufficient ground analogous to formal defect. Further the cause of action for eviction on the bona fide ground, that is, under Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act is a recurring cause of action and even without seeking the liberty the Petitioner is at liberty to refile the petition on bona fide requirement again. Hon‟ble Supreme Court N.R. Narayan Swamy vs. B. Francis Jagan, 2001 (6) SCC 473 held:

13. Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges that the trial having commenced no amendment of the petition should have been allowed. The Petitioner urges that once issues are framed and the matter is listed for Plaintiff‟s evidence the trial begins whereas the Respondents contend that only when the Plaintiff enters into the witness box and examines himself or tenders his evidence by way of affidavit, the trial commences. Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not prohibit amendment once trial has started. It only provides that the party should show that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. In the present case on the Respondent filing a composite application since the learned ARC vide order dated 31st January, 2014 held that no leave to defend was required a petition was filed challenging the same before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 27th March, 2014 whereafter the Respondents filed the first application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 2nd July, 2014 and before the same could be adjudicated the second application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 30th October, 2014 filed. Though the written statement had been filed by the Petitioner, however, no evidence by way of affidavit had been filed by the Respondents. Hence it cannot be said that the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed belatedly and ought not to have been entertained by the learned Trial Court as no due diligence was shown.