OLIVE MARQUES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India laying a challenge to Chapter III-A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') inasmuch as it provides a summary procedure which procedure has been made applicable to tenants, both of residential premises as also non-residential premises; submission being that Section 25-A to Section 25-C which are contained in Chapter III-A of the said Act are unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. A second prayer has been made to quash the proceedings pending before the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) as this summary procedure which has been adopted by the ARC is ultra vires and is liable to be struck down.

(2.) Record shows that an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the said Act has been filed by the landlord Mohd. Haroon Japanwala (respondent No. 4) seeking eviction of his tenants/petitioners from shop No. G-14, Marina Arcade, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'said premises'). The original tenant was Mr. Salazar Luis Anthony Marques and petitioners No. 1 & 2 are his widow and daughter. The tenancy was commercial. The business being run in the said premises was under the name and style of 'M/s. Marques & Company'.

(3.) Summons were served upon the petitioners on 12.05.2008 which were received through their employee. On 18.08.2008, an application seeking leave to defend was filed by the petitioners under Section 25-B (4) and (5) seeking leave to contest the eviction petition. Respondent No. 4 filed his reply to the said application taking an objection that the affidavit filed by the tenants was unattested. On merits also, the stand set up by the petitioners was disputed. Meanwhile since the original tenant (S.L.A. Marques) had expired on 10.04.2009, an application seeking substitution of his legal heirs was filed which was followed by another additional application. On 14.01.2010, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Code') seeking permission to amend their affidavit to the extent that it was not attested or in the alternate to file a fresh affidavit in support of their application seeking leave to defend. A reply was filed by respondent No. 4 objecting to the same to which a rejoinder was filed. Written submissions were thereafter filed by the petitioners.