VINOD INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SURAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point in this revision petition is whether the tenant who had filed the leave to defend application within the time stipulated supported by a short affidavit can he allowed to file an affidavit by way of leave to defend and can be allowed to amend the leave to defend application already filed ?

(2.) Vinod Industries (P) Ltd. was a tenant of Smt. Suraj Kumari, respondent herein of the first and second floor of premises bearing No. 82, Jor Bagh. Respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner on 13.1 91 for eviction u/S. 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act).

(3.) Notice in the prescribed form was issued to the respondent, The petitioner filed a leave to defend application with a short affidavit instead of filing leave to defend affidavit as required u/S. 25-B (4) of the Act. Therefore, on objection being raised by the respondent, petitoner moved an application u/S. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission of the court to file detailed affidavit and to grant unconditional leave to defend the proceedings. This application was subsequently withdrawn by an application u/0. 23 R. 1 (3) read with S. 151 Civil Procedure Code on 22.1.92 with liberty to move two separate applications; one seeking the prayer to file a detailed affidavit and the other seeking to amend the affidavit already filed in order to bring on record subsequent events and clarifications. Thereafter, the petitioner moved two applications; one u/S. 151 Civil Procedure Code . and the other u/0. 6 R. 17 Civil Procedure Code . Both the applications were filed in Jan. 1992. By the impugned order the court below dismissed all the four applications filed by the petitioner with costs. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. At the outset the respondent took the objection that the revision is not maintainable. If an application u/0. 6 R. 17 is disallowed the remedy is by way of appeal. [In para 4, S. 38 (i) is reproduced].