D S BANSAL Vs. K G KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, Mr. K.G. Krishnamurthy hereinafter referred to as the respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14C of the Delhi Rent Control Act hereinafter referred to as the Act against D.S. Bansal, on the plea that he was retired Govt. servant and he needs the premises bonafide for himself and his family members dependant upon him. The petitioner D.S. Bansal was duly served with the notice on 31.5.91, but he did not file an application under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking leave to defend the proceedings within a period of fifteen days as prescribed under the Act and, therefore, in the absence of any affidavits seeking leave to defend an order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller on 16.7.91.

(2.) Aggrieved, the tenant DS. Bansal, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, filed an application under Order 37 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code seeking the relief that the eviction order passed should be set aside as he was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the prescribed time. The plea taken in his application under Order 37 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code is that on that date when he received the summons on 31.5.91 he suffered severe heart attack and was admitted in Singh Nursing home, Vivek Vihar, where he remained under treatment up to 20,7.91.

(3.) That application under Order 37 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code is pending disposal before the Rent Controller. In those proceedings the petitioner moved an application seeking stay of the eviction order. The Rent Controller vide order dated 24.9.1991 declined the request of the petitioner for stay. Aggrived this petition has been filed. The main contention of Mr. Kalra Counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of deciding an application for interim stay the Court has not to look into the documents and evidence so minutely when the main petition is pending disposal. According to him the observations of the Rent Controller that complete record from the Nursing Home has not been produced are not called for. Whether he remained admitted in Singh Nursing Home or Mandawali Nursing Home is to be decided on the basis of evidence and not at this stage. The application for stay should not have been rejected. He has a prima facie case and in case he is dispossessed he will suffer irreparable loss and injury.