ASHIA BEGUM Vs. KAXIM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 herein filed a petition foreviction against the petitioner under Sec. 14(1)(e) read with Sec. 25-B ofthe Delhi Rent Control Act which is being tried by the Additional RentController, Delhi. After the petitioner filed her written statement and respondent no. 1 filed his replication, the petitioner filed an application underOrder 18, Rule 17-A read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seekingliberty to examine certain witnesses and production of certain documentsincluding the original record of Suit No. 166 of 1970. The Additional RentController vide his order dated 29/04/1986 dismissed this application of thepetitioner and aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed a petition underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India being C.M.(M) 184 of 1986. ThisCourt on a concession made by the respondent herein allowed the petitionand directed as follows :-

(2.) Therefore, when the case came up before the Additional Rent Controlleron remand, the petitioner berein filed an application for summoning certainwitnesses. One of the witnesses was to produce the original record of SuitNo. 166 of 1970 Gosh no. 241/City DOC 29.11.72 by Shri R.L. Gupta,Sub Judge, Delhi. On 23/12/1986 when the clerk of the RecordRoom appeared before the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi he stated thatthe summoned record was not available and an inquiry was being made bySmt. Aruna Suresh, Commercial Sub Judge, Delhi in connection with the reconstruction of the said record and, therefore, he could not produce thesummoned file. Since the record was not available, none of the witnessesmentioned in the application could be examined. The case was postponedtime and again for this purpose; however ultimately on 3/03/1987,the Additional Rent Controller closed the evidence of the petitioner observingthat since this Court had directed the evidence to be completed withinthree months and dispose of the case within six months, no further timecould be given to the petitioner on the ground of non-availability of recordand, therefore, closed the evidence. It is this order of the Additional RentController Delhi dated 3/03/1987 which has been challenged by thepetitioner in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Notice to show cause was issued to the respondent on this petitionand at the hearing of the case, the very relevancy of this record was challenged by respondent no. 1. In any event, since the petitioner was given libertyto adduce additional evidence without any restriction by a previous order ofthis Court dated 12/11/1986, the only restriction being regardingtime, a further report was asked for by me from Smt. Aruna Suresh, Commercial Sub Judge, Delhi whether the record can at all be re-constructed andmade available to the petitioner in the present case. A report has now beenreceived from Smt. Aruna Suresh, Commercial Sub Judge, Delhi who wasin-charge for the re-construction of the record that for the reasons statedin the report, it is not possible to re-construct the record.