MANOJ KUMAR BHATT Vs. SEWAK RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short "the Rent Act") has been filed by the petitioners-landlords against the order dated 06.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller ("the Controller" in short) dismissing their eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act against the respondent-tenant in respect of one shop no. 386, built on Plot no. 24, Khasra No. 235/35-36-39, Block BD, Ward No. 16, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi(hereinafter to be referred as "the tenanted shop"). The brief facts which led to filing of this petition are that the petitioners-landlords had filed an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant seeking his eviction from the tenanted shop on many grounds, one of which was the bona fide requirement of the tenanted shop. The Controller when took up the eviction petition for the first time on 01.06.2009 had passed the following order:

(2.) The respondent-tenant in the present case was duly served with the summons which was returnable for 20/08/2009 but he did not file any application seeking leave of the Controller to contest the eviction petition within 15 days and instead presented his written statement on 07/08/2009. On 20.08.2009 the learned Controller was on leave and so the ahalmad of the Court fixed the case for 24.10.2009 after recording in the order-sheet that written statement had already been filed. On 24.10.2009 the following order was passed by the Controller:

(3.) Then vide order dated 06.04.2011 the learned Controller not only rejected the objection of the petitioners-landlords that written statement should not have been accepted but the eviction petition itself was also rejected as far as the ground under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act was concerned for the reason that the same was not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 14(6) of the Rent Act it having been filed within a period of five years from the date of the purchase of the property in question by the petitioners from its erstwhile owners. The Controller however decided to proceed with the eviction petition on other grounds which had also been invoked by the petitioners-landlords. It was also observed by the controller that earlier summons as prescribed in Schedule III of the Rent Act were wrongly and inadvertently issued.