LAWS(DLH)-2006-9-58

MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. GAUTAM ROY

Decided On September 13, 2006
MOTOR AND GENERAL FINANCE LTD Appellant
V/S
GAUTAM ROY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed eviction proceedings against respondent No. 1, the tenant and other parties alleging them to be sub-tenants. The eviction was sought on grounds of Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, "the said Act") for non-payment of rent, under Section 14(1)(b) of the said Act for sub-letting and under Section 14(1)(j) of the said Act for causing substantial damage to the premises.

(2.) The Court of the Additional Rent Controller (for short, "ARC") allowed the petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the said Act giving the benefit of Section 14(2) of the said Act. The petitioner succeeded on the ground of Section 14(1)(b) of the said Act on account of sub-letting to M/s. Wimpy Fast Food Pvt. Ltd. as also under Section 14(1)(j) of the said Act. Benefit of Section 14(11) was given so far as ground of Section 14(1)(j) of the said Act is concerned.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 availed of the appellate remedy and the appeals were dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"). The second appeals filed before this Court are pending consideration. The petitioner sought to take out execution proceedings in respect of the tenanted premises and it is during those proceedings, it transpired that there was some problem in the possession being taken over on account of the fact that the eviction order dated 03.03.1999 had referred to a site-plan Ex. AW"6/8, while, in fact, that was not the complete tenanted premises. The total premises consisted of Ex. AW"6/8 and Ex. AW"7/1 being the two site-plans. The petitioner filed applications under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Code") seeking a prayer that the eviction order be corrected by incorporating Ex. AW"7/1 in para 46 of page 49 of the judgment dated 03.03.1999 where the reference had been made to the site-plan Ex. AW"6/8. This application of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 06.05.2004 resulting in the present revision petition.