OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT CONSULTANTS Vs. A.S. BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON August 6, 1981, A.S. Bakhshi, respondent herein brought a petition for eviction of the appellant M/s Overseas Employment Consultants from the premises in dispute, namely. Basement of 82-83 Vakunath, Nehru Place, New Delhi. It was averred that the tenant was in possession of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- and had neither paid nor tendered the whole of rent due from January 1, 1981 in spite of service of notice of demand dated March 13, 1981.

(2.) THE appellant was duly served of the application for eviction. Mr. Rupender Singh, Advocate was engaged as its counsel. The counsel appeared before the Addl. Controller on September 30, 1981 and sough adjournment for filing the written statement. The case was adjourned to October 27, 1981. On that date the written statement was not ready. Adjournment was allowed on payment of Rs. 40/- as costs and case fixed for November 23, 1981 when the written statement was filed. This written statement admittedly did not bear the signatures of the appellant and was signed only by the counsel. The case was, thereafter, fixed for March 28, 1982 for arguments for the purposes of making an order under Sub-Section 1 of Section 15 of the Act. On that date some proxy counsel appeared for the appellant tenant and arguments were heard. On April 12, 1982 an order under Section 15(1) directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent with effect from January 1, 1981 upto date at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month within one month from the date of order and to continue to pay or deposit the future rent at the same rate by the 15th of each following month, was made. The case was fixed for September 15, 1982 for landlord's evidence. In between the landlord moved an application under Section 15(7) for striking out the defence of the tenant. Notice was issued to the tenant for the date already fixed i.e. 15th September, 1982. Nobody appeared on behalf of the tenant on that date and it was proceeded ex parte. Ultimately an order for eviction was passed against it on October 25, 1982.

(3.) THEREAFTER tha application was again dismissed by the learned Additional Controller. Appeal filed against the order was dismissed by the Tribunal and hence the second appeal.