DAYAL KISHAN PHADIYAL Vs. SUKHMAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the first call, the matter was passed over on the request of the petitioner that the counsel is led by a senior counsel and which senior counsel is arguing in another court. It was stated that the matter be passed over as the senior counsel will be free in a short time. The matter was hence passed over, but, even on the second call after one hour of the pass over, only one another counsel appears for the petitioner and again prays for a pass over on the ground that the senior counsel is held up yet in another case. For this reason that the case cannot be kept on hold at convenience, counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes any further pass over, and therefore I have directed the counsel appearing for the petitioner to argue the case. Counsel for the petitioner, however states that he cannot argue the case.

(2.) A reading of the impugned order dated 16.4.2014 shows that the same has dismissed an application under Order 37 Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the petitioner/tenant in a bonafide necessity petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) The eviction petition for bonafide necessity was decreed ex-parte as per the order dated 18.12.2012 as the petitioner/tenant did not appear inspite of service. As per Section 25B(4) of the Act, in case a leave to defend application is not filed within 15 days of service, the contents of the eviction petition are deemed to be admitted and an eviction petition decree follows.