VIMALA SHARMA BIMLA SHARMA Vs. VEERAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application seeking a Review of the Orders passed on 24.7.2001. The grounds raised are that the Petitioner/Tenant had appointed Ms. Sudha Srivastava, Advocate but she was not present when the Revision Petition first came up for hearing on 6.6.2001 (before S.K. MahaJan, J. the Learned Vacation Judge. It has been alleged that on 24.7.2001 when Ms. Sudha Srivastava .appeared, she gave "contradictory statements so that Respondent 'could succeed and the Petitioner could lose her case". In the Reply filed by the Landlord to the main petition it has been disclosed that similar complaints were' levelled by the Revisionist against her counsel Shri Kulbhushan Mehta and Shri Jai parkash.

(2.) In the Order dated 24.7.2001 which is sought to be reviewed, I had taken into consideration the fact that S.K. Mahajan, J., the Learned Vacation Judge, had given a hearing to the counsel who appeared for the Petitioner on 6.6,2001.It was after this hearing that notice was issued limited to the grant of time to the Petitioner to vacate the premises. It was evident that the Petitioner had sought to resile from the statement made on her behalf, with the change in the Presiding Office of the Court.. Ironically Ms. Sudha Srivastava had, on 24.7.2001, stated that her associate, who quite obviously had appeared on her instructions, had no authority to concede the petition and ask for time to vacate the premises. She has become the victim of the Tenant's strategy. This charade must be put.to an end with a firm hand. By giving yet another hearing on the Revision Petition an end to this controversy can be reached. Hence the application is allowed. Although the application should attract the imposition of heavy costs, I refrain from awarding any.C.R.211/2001

(3.) The case of the Petitioner/Tenant is that she has been 'residing'in the premises for approximately thirty years having been inducted therein by Shri :Narain Dass, who died on 2.2.1997 leaving behind his widow, namely, Smt. Veeran Devi, the Respondent herein, two sons and one daughter. All the children are married and have their respective families. The Eviction Petition was filed under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act') premised on the foundation of the Respondent being a widow.