SUDARSHAN MALIK Vs. NARMADA PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order dated 23-9-89 of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which he passed an order of eviction against the tenant, respondent 2, who is the husband of the petitioner, from the premises bearing Flat No. 37, SFS, DDA, M.B. Road (Ground and first floor) New Delhi in favour of the landlord respondent 1 and also rejected an application of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) . The brief facts leading to this revision petition arc that on 26-8-89 the landlord executed a lease agreed in favour of the tenant for letting out the- aforesaid premises to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 1400.00 . The petitioner alongwith her husband came into possession of the premises on 1-9-88. The husband left the premises on 1-6-1989 and started residing in another premises. The landlord is then alleged to have filed the eviction petition under Section. 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of respondent 2 at his behest knowing it fully well that he was not residing .in the house and it was only the petitioner who was residing there. She was a necessary party and, therefore, she made an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code- which was also rejected by the learned ARC while passing an order of eviction against respondent 2.

(3.) . Alongwith this revision, the petitioner also filed CM No. 574/90 under Section 151 of the Code read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay in filling this revision. It is alleged in this application that the petitioner had instructed clerk of her counsel to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order. She was informed by the clerk that the application for obtaining the certified copy bad been filed and the copy will be handed over to her as soon as it was obtained. On 22-2-1990, the clerk told her that the slip issued by the Copying branch for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment got misplaced and so certified copy could not be obtained. Instead, he provided her a plain copy of the impugned order. She then applied for a certified copy of the impugned order on the same date i e. 22-2-90. Therefore, she alleged that the delay in filing the revision was neither intentional nor deliberate and was on account of the reasons beyond her control and, therefore, prayed that the delay be condoned.