HINDUSTAN EVEREST TOOLS Vs. P C MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the tenant-appellant against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal affirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi passed under S.I 5(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act), directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent of the demised premises calculated at the rate of Rs. 2616.36 P.M. with effect from March 1, 1982, till October 9, 1985, the date of the passing of the order by him, and future rent month by month, by the 15 th of each succeeding month at the same rate. The appeal which was filed on January 3, 1986 was accompanied by a kacha copy of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and a photocopy of a certified copy of the order of the Controller obtained earlier by the appellant, which copy is alleged to have been filed before the court of the Tribunal when the appeal against the order of the Controller was filed. The appeal was admitted subject to the appellant's filing certified copies of the impugned orders of the controller and the Tribunal within limitation. A certified copy of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal was later filed by the appellant on the record of this case and that has been filed within limitation. The appellant has, however, not filed a certified copy of the order of the Controller on the record of this appeal so far. An objection was raised by Mr. Rawal, learned counsel for the respondent, that the appellant not having filed a certified copy of that order till now the appeal should be dismissed on this short ground. THIS objection was raised as a preliminary objection by Mr. Rawal on July 22, 1987 when Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, was to open his arguments of the appeal. Mr. Gupta then pointed out that the appellant had asked for supplying a certified copy of the order of the Controller within limitation in the same application in which he had also asked for the supply of a certified copy of the impunged order of the Tribunal, as also of the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal i.e. on November 26, 1985; but that the certified copy of the order of the Controller has not been supplied to the appellant so far. Mr. Gupta stated that he would find out if the copy is now available and shall produce the same on the record of the appeal if made available by the Copying Agency. He has also stated that in case the same is not made available till then he would produce the receipt issued to the appellant from the Copying Agency showing the date of the filing of the application for the supply of the copy of the order of the Controller. The case was adjourned as part-heard to July 23,1987 and finally to today when arguments in the appeal have been concluded finally. The appellant has, however, not produced a certified copy of the impugned order of the Controller on the record of the case till now. Mr Gupta submitted that a copy of the order has not been supplied to the appellant so far as the record of the Controller was received in this Court some time in the beginning of April, 1986 and for that reason the Copying Agency has not been able to prepare a certified copy of the order of the Controller and supply the same to the appellant. It is obvious that it was the duty of the appellant to show that the appellant had applied for the supply of a certified copy of the order of the Controller within limitation No receipt from the Copying Agency has, however, been produced by the appellant before me so far to show if the appellant at all applied for the supply of a certified copy of the order of the Controller for being filed in this Court. Besides that if the appellant had included its request for the supply of a copy of the order of the Controller in the application for supply of a copy of the order of the Tribunal and a copy of the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, then the application requesting for the supply of a copy of the order of the Controller was not in order. Asstated by Mr. Rawal, learned counsel for the respondent, and which is not opposed by Mr. Gupta, there are two Copying Agencies in the District Courts-one for supplying copies of the orders of the Subordinate Courts, Rent Controller and Additional Ren Controllers and the Copying Agency which supplies the copies of the judgments and orders of the District Judge, Additional District Judges and the Rent Control Tribunal as the other Copying Agency. The record also reveals that the records of the court of the Controller were received in this Court some time between 1st and 10th April, 1986 and they were sent back to the court of the Additional Rent Controller towards the middle of April, 1986 from where they were again received in this Court vide the letter dated 2/4.8.1986 of Shri R.K. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. From all this it is obvious that the appellant has not been able to show if it at all applied for the supply of a certified copy of the order of the Controller. No attempt has been made by the appellant to place any material on the record to show that it had applied for the supply of a certified copy of the order of the Controller and, if so, when and what date or dates were given to the appellant for making the copy available. From all this it is obvious that the appellant has not been able to show that it at all applied for obtaining a certified copy of the order of the Controller. That being so, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs of the appeal.