RAM KUMAR Vs. HARISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) An application for setting aside the exparte order was made by Ram Kumar, but the same was dismissed in default. An application for restoration of that application was also dismissed in default on 17th Jannary 1962. The same day, a further application was made for re-to- ration of th" earlier application for restroration dismissed in default on 17th January 1962. This later application was dismissed on tha merits on 12th April, 1962 on the finding that no sufficient ground was shown for the absence of appaarance on l7th January, 1962 when the case was called. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 1st December, 1962 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. Shri Shyam Kishore, the learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that an appeal lies against the impugned order under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Act and that the same is barred by time. No revision would in the circumstances b3 enter tainable. On the merits also, it is contended that no explanation for absence on l7th January, 1962 is forthcoming, with the result that the impugned order deserves to be upheld.