CONTINENTAL PROFILES LIMITED Vs. GOPAL BALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the Caveator is represented through counsel caveat stands disposed off.

(2.) The question which has been raised in this Second Appeal is whether a Company, which had rented and relinquished premises prior to the filing of the eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')could nonetheless be evicted on the ground, namely, of having acquired vacant possession of A-40, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi. The Additional Rent Controller, as well as the Rent Control Tribunal, has found against the Tenant.

(3.) Mr. Sudhir K. Luthra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant, firstly contended that this ground ought not to have been considered for the reason that the concerned premises, i.e. A-40, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi had been brought into perspective and to the consideration of the Courts by means of a belated amendment to the petition. These premises were not available to the Tenant at the time when the eviction petition was filed. However, in my view, once the amendment was permitted, the question of delay and laches fades into the shadows, especially since this very aspect was earlier assailed upto the High Court. Furthermore in Smt. Mohini Nadhwar v.Raghunandan Saran, 1989 Rajdhani Law Reporter (SC) 262,it was held that