RAJ KUMAR Vs. HARISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harish Kumar and his brother applied in the Court of Rent Controller for the eviction- of Ram Kumar and his brother Ram Kishan on the grounds of (i) default in payment of rent, (ii sub-letting and ,iii) bona fide personal requirement. These pleas were controverted and it was added that Ram Kishan being the real brother of Ram Kumar, was living with him and there was no question of sub -tenarcy On September 9, 1960, claim against Ram Kishan was -given up and Ram Kumar being absent ex-parte evidence was led on the basis of which an order of eviction based on the ground of sub letting was passed against Ram Kumar

(2.) An application for setting aside the ex Parte order was made by ham Kumar, but the same was dismissed in default. An application for restoration of that application was also dismissed in default on 17th January. 1962. The same day, a further application was made for restoration of the earlier application for restoration dismissed in default on 17th January, 1962 This later application was dismissed on the merits on 12th April, I 62 on the finding that no sufficient ground was shown for the absence of appearence on 1-th January 1962, when the case was called. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 1st December, 195: on the ground that no appeal lay under section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as the impugned order was not one made under the provisions of the said Act. Reliance for this view was placed on a decision by Gosain, J. in South Asia Industries v. S. B -Sarup Singh.

(3.) It is against this order that the present revision has been preferred, Sbri Shayam Kishore. the learned counsel for the respondents, has raised a pieliminary objection that in appeal lies against the impuged order under section 39 of the Delhi Kent Act and that the same is barred by time. No revision would in the circumstances be entertainable. On the merits also, it is contended that no explantion for absence on l7/th January, 1962 is forthcoming, with the result that the impugned older deserves to be upheld.