SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. REHMAT ULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of S.A.OS. 150 of 1971 and 151/71. The facts leading to these appeals are as under :

(2.) On August 9, 1967 the appellant Subhash Chander, [hereafter called "the landlord"] filed an application under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereafter called "the Act"] for eviction of the respondent tenant, Rehmat Ullah Khan on the ground, amongst others, that the premises had been let for residence and that neither the tenant nor any member of his family had been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of filing of the application. Notice of the application was issued to the tenant twice but he was not served. On October 17, 1967, the learned Additional Rent Controller ordered the tenant to be served by substituted service for November 20, 1967. The service was duly effected but no one appeared on the date fixed. On November 20, 1967, the case was adjourned to November 24, 1967 for recording ex-parte evidence. The landlord produced his evidence on this date and the case was fixed for December 1, 1967 for orders. On this date the learned Additional Rent Controller granted an order of eviction in favour of the landlord against the tenant. On December 7, 1967 the landlord applied for warrant of possession in execution of this order which was apparently issued and on December 16, 1967 landlord took physical possession of the premises.

(3.) On December 18, 1967, one Manmohan describing himself as the manager of the tenant along with one of the tenant, Kaniz Begum, applied to the Additional Rent Controller for setting aside of the ex-parte order of eviction, On January 5, 1968, this application was rejected on the ground that the applicant did not represent the tenant and as such had no locus standi to make the application. On February 16, 1968, Manmohan filed another application under Order 9 rule 13 on the basis of a power of attorney granted by the tenant in his favour. On February 10, 1970 the ex- partc order of eviction was set aside. By a separate order the main application of the landlord was also dismissed. On February 11, 1970 the tenant applied for restoration of possession of the premises that had been taken in execution of the ex-parte order. The learned Additional Rent Controller on the same day passed an order directing restoration of possession. On February 12, 1970, warrant for resoration was issued. The landlord applied for stay of the restoration proceedings but by order dated May 6, 1970 the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed this application.