MODERN LAMINATORS PVT LTD Vs. HANUMAN HOSIERY MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.No.10877/2014 (exemption)

(2.) Tenants who contest the suit for possession and mesne profits filed by owner/landlord with respect to premises which are outside the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 use every tactic in the book and not in the book, to delay and drag the suit for possession. This present petition is one such tactic adopted by the tenant.

(3.) The challenge is to an order by which the court below has disposed of an application of petitioner/defendant for framing additional issues by observing that whatever aspects or issues which the petitioner/defendant/tenant is seeking to get framed under Order 14 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), are already covered under the issues framed. Therefore really there remained no grievance of the petitioner. In any case, clarification given by the court below in the impugned order was only as a matter of abundant caution because in every suit for possession filed by an owner/landlord for recovery of possession, with respect to premises outside the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), three aspects are required to be proved. First aspect is of the plaintiff being the owner/landlord, second of the premises being outside the operation of the Act and thirdly that the tenancy has been terminated. The issues already framed cover these aspects. Therefore, not only the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC need not have been filed by the petitioner/defendant, in any case the clarification given at internal page 4 of the impugned order that whatever defences which the petitioner/defendant wanted to urge are already included in the existing issues, shows that no grievance remained of the petitioner/defendant, yet, the petition for understandable reasons is not satisfied.