JAGJIT SINGH CHADHA Vs. M J SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner instituted a petition for eviction of the respondent from the ground floor of property no. F-120 Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi comprising of one room, kitchen and bath-cum- latrine under Section 14(1 )(e) read with Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The repondent was granted leave to defend and contest the said petition. On 11-9-85 when the case was listed for the evidence of the petitioner, a prayer was made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner for an adjournment on the ground that the petitioner was out of India. The Additional Rent Controller however refused to grant adjournment and closed the evidence of the petitioner and since there was no evidence in support of the averments in the petition also dismissed the main petition. It is this order of the Addl. Rent Controller which has challenged by the petitioner in this revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Act.

(2.) After the petition was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller the petitioner moved an application under Order 47, Rule I read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for review of the said order and judgment which application was also dismissed on 30th July 1986.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is true that the petition was filed as far back as in the year 1980 but it was not the petitioner who was responsible for the delay in disposal of the petition and in fact the petitioner was keen on getting the petition disposed of early because of his bona fide need of the premises in question. Several dates were given during the course of these five years for various reasons ; on some date the Presiding Officer was on leave, on some date the respondent sought time or in some date some documents were not available. He submitted that only on three dates it was the petitioner who prayed for time. Learned counsel submitted that on 28th March 1985 the Additional Rent Controller directed that the petition be listed for the evidence of the petitioner on 11th September 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner had gone to the United Kingdom where he fell ill and could not remain present on the date fixed. Therefore, a request was made for an adjournment. The situation was beyond the control of the petitioner and the ground for adjournment was bona fide and there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to delay the proceedings. It was, therefore, submitted that the Additional Rent Controller ought to have considered the hardship and ground for non-appearance of the petitioner of non-production of the evidence of the petitioner on 11th September 1985 passing the impugned order.