SETH BROTHERS Vs. RAM NATH DAGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who has moved this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, is doing business as a partnership firm at 2735-36, Kashmir Gate, Delhi. The first respondent, who is the owner thereof, filed an application under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 for permission to evict the tenant alleging arrears of rent and subletting. Without personal service being effected on the petitioner permission was granted ex parte on 14th May 1970 by the Competent Authority to file an eviction petition. Both the grounds alleged for eviction, namely, arrears of rent and subletting, were denied by the petitioner.

(2.) When the notice, of the application for eviction filed before the Additional Rent Controller was served on 24th September, 1970 he came to know of the ex-parte order passed by the Competent Authority on 14th May, 1970 and moved an application before it on 26th September 1970, to set aside the ex-parte order. On 4th January 1971 the competent authority dismissed the application of the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order observing that it had become functus officio since an eviction petition had already been filed, in pursuance of the permission granted; reliance for this position, was placed on a decision of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi.

(3.) In the present petition, which has been filed to quash the said order of the Competent Authority dated 4th January 1971 extensive and elaborate allegations have been made concerning the petitioner not having been served and questioning the correctness of the procedure adopted in the matter of the issue and service of notices to the petitioner and the manner in which the petitioner was set ex-parte. But the only prayer which was originally made was for setting aside the order of the competent authority dated 4th January 1971 but not the ex-parte order dated 14th May 1970. During the course of the hearing the petitioner filed C.M. 1513W of 1971 for amending the writ petition by including a prayer for quashing the order dated 14th May 1970 also. Though this petition was opposed I consider that since the petitioner may not be precluded from filing yet another writ petition for the same relief the ends of justice require that the amendment should be granted. The amendment-petition is accordingly allowed.