RAMESHWAR DAYAL Vs. NIRULA HANDICRAFT BAZAR PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 19.4.2011 whereby the application filed by the tenant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for taking into account certain subsequent events which had arisen after the filing of the eviction petition had been dismissed. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the DRCA"). The contention of the tenant in his application before the trial Court was that property Nos. 10, 12 and 14 of Doctor's Lane, Delhi had been sealed by the Monitoring Committee of the Delhi High Court on 27.3.2008 but thereafter they had been de-sealed on 5.2.2010. This subsequent event is necessary to be brought to light for the effective adjudication of the petition. Trial Court had noted that the procedure prescribed to deal with the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act does not permit filing of such like application as it would defeat the very purpose for which this provision has been enacted. The impugned order suffers from no infirmity. Apex Court in the case of Corona Ltd. v. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons, 2007 8 SLT 629, had considered the impact of subsequent events on an eviction decree under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA; it had inter alia noted as follows:

(2.) This position has been reiterated by subsequent judgments of Benches of this Court reported in Dharam Pal Gupta & Ors. v. Anand Prakash,2008 155 DLT 681 as also in the judgment Ruparel & Company v. S. Avtar Singh Puri (Deed.) through L.Rs. & Ors., 2009 159 DLT 101 In this view of the matter the impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity.