(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the finding returned by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) dated 03.04.2007 vide which in an appeal against the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 06.04.2004; the RCT had granted certain adjustments to the respondents/tenants.
(2.) ALONG with this petition, an application seeking condonation of delay of 203 days in refilling the present petition has been filed. The averments made in this application have been perused. It is only a one paragraph application which has stated that the petitioner got delayed in clearing the petition because of illness of the counsel who was suffering from jaundice; no dates have been mentioned. No medical record of the counsel has been filed along with the application. The application in fact does not even make an averment that any justifiable cause has made out for condonation of this inordinate delay of 203 days. These averments become all the more relevant as they reflect upon the overall conduct of the counsel for the petitioner. Even after filing of this petition, no steps had been taken to file process fee to serve the respondents. This was noted in the order dated 06.08.2008. On that day, since none had appeared for the petitioner, the petition had been dismissed for non- prosecution. An application seeking restoration was thereafter filed pursuant to which the petition was restored.
(3.) RECORD shows that a petition under Section 14 (1)(a) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRCA) had been filed by Nathi Ram against Har Bhagwan. Har Bhagwan was the tenant in respect of shop No. 719/1, Gaushala Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi. The eviction petition filed by Nathi Ram under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA was allowed; however this being a case of first default, the tenant was directed to deposit the arrears of rent of three months prior to the date of filing of the petition within one month which were @ Rs.50/- per month. The application filed by the tenant seeking adjustment of rent was declined.