RAJ RANI Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Order I shall dispose off the three applications filed by the Petitioner (a) C.M. 1024/2001 for the restoration of the Civil Revision dismissed for non-prosecution; (b) C.M. 1025/2001 for staying dispossession of the Applicant/Petitioner and (c) C.M. 1026/2001 for condoning the delay in filing the application for restoration of the Civil Revision.

(2.) The facts, in precis, are that over one decade ago a petition had been filed for the eviction of the Tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. By the impugned Order dated 15/10/1996, this petition was allowed and an Eviction Order was passed against the Tenant who is the Petitioner herein. Six months time was granted to the Tenant for vacating the premises. A few days before the expiry of this period of six months the present Revision petition was filed. At the initial hearing, a stay of dispossession was ordered which appears to have continued till 2/11/2000 when the Revision petition was taken up for its Final Disposal in the category of Regular Matters. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has belaboured the fact that no Orders dated 2/11/2000 are available on the file. This is no doubt true. However, on that date the matter was heard in detail by my Learned Brother Madan B. Lokur, J. as is evident from the Orders passed on the following day, that is, 3/11/2000. It is palpably evident that no Orders dated 2/11/2000 are available on the Court file for the reason that my Learned Brother Madan B. Lokur, J. had dictated the Orders in Court. He, therefore, felt no necessity to make a formal order to this effect. The matter, however, was renotified by him on the following day. Although it is a surmise, quite obviously the Learned Judge had decided for the dismissal of the Revision. If this were not so there would have been no reluctance to pronounce the Order even in the absence of the party in whose favour it was to be passed. But this conjecture has not in any manner influenced my present decision. The Orders dated 3/11/2000 are reproduced below : C.R. 324./1997

(3.) As mentioned above, reading between the lines it would be fair to infer that the decision of the Learned Judge was against the Petitioner. However, in the interest of justice, he had considered it appropriate to give yet another opportunity to the Petitioner to be present and address arguments. The matter came up for hearing on 7/11/2000 when there was again no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. The Revision petition was taken up on 9/11/2000 and was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the matter was not duly shown in the Cause List circulated on 2/11/2000, 3/112000, 7/11/2000 or finally on 9/11/2000. Despite being specifically listed, no appearance/representation was made on behalf of the Petitioner on all these four dates, while dismissing the petition for non-prosecution my Learned Brother Madan B. Lokur, J. had directed that one month's clear notice should be given to the Petitioner before the decree of eviction is executed. A Notice dated 30/3/2001 was duly issued by the counsel for the Respondent/Landlord and was served oh. the Tenant/Petitioner herein on 3/4/2001. Eventually these applications were filed on 11/4/2001. At the first hearing of the case on 25/4/2001 notice of the applications was ordered and I had stayed the execution proceedings till the next date of hearing, that is, 7/5/2001. On that date the following Order was passed; which are reproduced in order to illustrate the conduct of the, Petitioner even after the dismissal of the Revision.