NIRMAL Vs. GUNWANT KAUR SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition, brought under proviso to Sec. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner/tenant has assailed order dtd. 6/4/2022 of the learned Rent Controller whereby, on account of failure of the petitioner/tenant to file an application for leave to contest, eviction petition under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act in respect of one shop (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") in front portion of the larger premises No. F-103A, Bali Nagar, New Delhi was allowed and the petitioner/tenant was granted six months under Sec. 14(7) of the Act to vacate. On service of notice, the respondent/landlord entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows.

(3.) During final arguments, learned counsel for petitioner/tenant took me through the aforesaid and contended that the impugned eviction order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant admitted that summons in the prescribed format having been served on 3/3/2022 through registered post and on 9/3/2022 through ordinary process, the time prescribed by law to file the application for leave to contest expired on 18/3/2022, by which date no such application was filed. But learned counsel for petitioner/tenant contended that since the paper book supplied with the summons was not complete and most of it was illegible, the learned Rent Controller ought to have extended time to file an application for leave to contest. Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant also contended that the learned Rent Controller having not granted extension of time, this court can exercise powers in terms with law laid down by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Director, Directorate of Education & Anr vs Mohd Shamim & Anr, (2020) 266 DLT 1 and grant extension of time with the directions to the learned Rent Controller to consider the defence of the petitioner/tenant.