JASVINDER SINGH Vs. RAMESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 13.08.2009, by which the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner/tenant in a petition preferred by the respondent/landlord under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed and an eviction order passed in favour of the respondent.

(2.) The only argument urged on behalf of the petitioner to assail the impugned order is that the learned Additional Rent Controller erred in not appreciating that the eviction petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Though a copy of the eviction petition has not been filed on the record, counsel for the petitioner hands over a copy thereof, which is taken on the record. He draws the attention of this Court to column 14 of the eviction petition to state that the names of all the legal heirs of Late Shri Jagjeet Singh, the original tenant have not been furnished by the respondent. A perusal of column 3(b) of the eviction petition shows that the name of the petitioner has been specifically indicated against the name and address of the tenant. Furthermore, the aforesaid stand of the petitioner has to be examined in the light of his stand as taken by him in the leave to defend application filed by him in the court below. Counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that no such defence was taken by him, in the leave to defend application. The petitioner cannot seek to assail the impugned order on a ground which was never urged before the learned Additional Rent Controller.

(3.) Taking into consideration the fact that this Court is required to examine the impugned order in the light of the averments made in the leave to defend application and in view of the fact that for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not take any such ground in the leave to defend application as sought to be taken now, the petitioner cannot be permitted to improve upon his case at this belated stage. The petitioner is deemed to have waived any such objection to the maintainability of the eviction petition and is estopped from taking such a plea in the revision petition. No other ground has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned order.