RAM KISHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

(2.) This writ petition seeks to lay a challenge to Chapter III A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'); submission being that the substantive provisions of the said Act do not provide any period for filing an application for leave to defend but the period of 15 days which has been prescribed in the IIIrd Schedule of the said Act is ultra vires; the provisions of the Schedule are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 25-B (4); they accordingly be declared ultra vires. This is the thrust of the argument addressed before us.

(3.) Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the respondent/landlord against the petitioner/tenant under Section 14 (1)(e) of the said Act on the ground of bonafide requirement for the premises bearing No. G-18, 19 & 24, Marina Arcade, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. This was in May, 2008. The petitioner is a tenant in the aforenoted premises since the year 1937. Pursuant to the amendments incorporated in the said Act from time to time, the petitioner exercised his right to get the respondent evicted on the ground of bonafide requirement. Summons were duly served upon the petitioner. He, however, chose not to file his leave to defend inspite of service; the whole controversy being agitated upon whether the service had been duly served upon the petitioner or not. The Additional Rent Controller (ARC) had returned a finding that Rajender Prasad an employee of the petitioner had been duly served with the summons and the leave to defend not having been filed within the prescribed period of 15 days, a decree of eviction automatically followed in favour of the respondent/landlord.