PREETI ARORA Vs. VIJENDER SINGH CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals, i.e., SAO No.30/92 and SAO No.31/92 are taken up together since they arise out of the common impugned judgement and/or order dated 26.8.92. In these appeals the order dated 26.8.92 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi while dismissing RCA 63/91 and RCA 62/91 is impugned. The said RCAs in turn arose out of two orders both dated 9.1.91 in Eviction Petition 363/87 passed by the Additional Rent Controller. By the first order dated 9.1.91, the Additional Rent Controller struck off the defence of the appellant/tenant on the ground of non-payment of costs of Rs.150/- imposed on the appellant /tenant on the previous date i.e. 6.3.90. The second order dated 9.1.91 has been passed ordering eviction of the appellant/ tenant on the ground mentioned in Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 after recording the statement of the respondent as AW1 and having struck off the defence of the appellant/ tenant.

(2.) The facts so much as are likely are as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the short point for decision in this case is whether the discretion vested in the additional Rent Controller under Section 35 B of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 148 ought not to have been exercised in his favour in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, in view of the fact that costs of only Rs.150/- was imposed and the appellant's conduct hitherto has not been dilatory.