URMILA & ANR Vs. RAM AVATAR & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 3.12.2013 by which the Rent Control Tribunal has dismissed the two appeals filed under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act'). The first appeal was filed against the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 31.10.2011 by which the objections filed by the present petitioners to the execution application filed by the respondents were dismissed. The second appeal which was dismissed was filed by the present petitioner no.1 against the ex parte eviction order dated 7.4.1999 by which the eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act was decreed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the present respondents filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner no.1 on the ground of nonpayment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act. In these eviction proceedings petitioner no.1 appeared but was proceeded ex parte as the petitioner no.1 after appearing had taken time to file the written statement but no one thereafter appeared on behalf of the petitioner no.1. Appearance was put on behalf of the petitioner no.1 on 20.10.1997 and petitioner no.1 was proceeded ex parte in the main eviction petition on 2.2.1998. Respondent no.1 thereafter recorded his evidence and an order under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act was passed on 4.3.1998. Once again on 6.4.1998, the petitioner no.1 moved an application to set aside the ex parte judgment and which resulted in the ex parte proceedings being set aside and the case was then adjourned for the petitioner no.1 to file her written statement, but once again the written statement was not filed and therefore petitioner no.1 was again proceeded ex parte on 24.2.1999. Finally, the order under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act was passed on 5.3.1999 and since the order under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act was not complied with, therefore, the eviction decree was passed against the petitioner no.1 on 7.4.1999. Respondent no.1 thereafter filed execution proceedings and petitioners filed objections in the execution proceedings which were dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller/trial court, as stated above by the judgment dated 31.10.2011.

(3.) Two aspects have to be seen by this Court as to whether objections which were filed by the petitioners in the execution proceedings have been validly dismissed by the order dated 31.10.2011 and secondly whether the Additional Rent Controller has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 7.4.1999 directing eviction of the petitioner no.1.