A.K. AGGARWAL Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against an order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller on 25th March, 1995 allowing the applications of the respondent landlady under Order 11, Rule 1 and Order 11, Rule 12 CPC. The petitioners have challenged the said order by way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noticing that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by making a similar grievance and this Court had vide its judgment dated 13th September, 1994 rejected the petitions filed by the present petitioners.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition on the grounds contained in clauses (b), (d) and (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act alleging amongst other things that the tenants had acquired or been allotted another residential accommodation bearing No. 89, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi and that neither the tenant/respondent No. 1 nor any member of his family was residing in the tenanted premises for the last more than six months prior to the filing of the eviction petition. The eviction petition was filed on 9th March, 1979. The petition is at the stage of evidence. The landlord's evidence is yet to be completed. After this Court laid down the procedure to be followed with respect to the applications of a landlady under Order XI CPC vide judgment dated 13th September, 1994, the Addl. Rent Controller passed the order which is the subject matter of the present petition. I cannot help getting an impression that the tenant is trying to avoid answering the interrogatories which were allowed to be served on him for one reason or the other and in the process, the proceedings in the main eviction petition are being delayed which suits the object of the tenants.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent-landlord has availed various opportunities and she cannot avail of the provisions of Order XI CPC to supplement her case. I am unable to accept this argument. Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure contains salutary provisions which are intended to curtail evidence thereby expediting trial of a suit and as such their provisions are very useful. They have to be liberally used and parties have to be encouraged to use them in the course of trial. The provision of Order XI CPC, do not deserve a technical or truncated approach. Ultimately the use of these provisions saves time of the Court and costs of litigation to the parties. Jessel M.R. In Attorney General Gaskill (1882) 20 Ch. D 519 said: