KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this Petition is the order passed by the learned Additional rent Controller in E-647/2006 filed by the petitioner whereby the learned additional Rent Controller has dismissed the petitioner's aforesaid eviction petition filed under Section 14 (i) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act ).

(2.) THE Respondent tenant despite service in the prescribed form failed to file an application seeking leave to defend within the statutory period. In fact, even without applying for and obtaining the leave of the Controller, the written statement was directly filed, though beyond the 15 days period prescribed for filing the application for seeking leave to defend. Thereafter, an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the application seeking leave to defend, and an application for treating the written statement as the application seeking leave to defend was filed by the respondent. Both these applications were dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Controller. This dismissal was never challenged by the Respondent. Thereafter, the learned Additional Rent controller proceeded to examine the claim of bonafide requirement of the petitioner. By the impugned order he dismissed the Eviction Petition holding that the need projected by the petitioner was not bonafide and that he was already in occupation of accommodation sufficient for his needs and the needs of his family. Challenging the said order, this Petition has been filed.

(3.) THE primary contention of the petitioner is that once an application seeking leave to defend is dismissed, or in a case where the same is not filed, the controller has no jurisdiction to dismiss the Petition under Section 14 (1) (e)and he must proceed to allow the Petition. In support of this submission, the petitioner relied on two decision of this court reported in 1987 (1) RCR 556, shri Bachan Singh vs. Shri Khem Chand and 1993 (3) RLR 133, Smt. Bhuvneshwari devi v. Col. Kalyan Singh. In the first of the aforesaid two decisions, while interpreting section 25b (4) of the Act this court held that the said provision is mandatory and if no application for leave to defend is filed, it is obligatory for the Rent controller to accept the statement made by the owner " landlord and order eviction. In the second decision as well, this court has held that if the tenant on whom the summons are duly served in the form specified in 3rd Schedule does not contest the prayer for eviction by filing an affidavit seeking leave to defend, the Controller is bound to take the statements made by the landlord in the application for eviction as correct. In bhuvneshwari Devi (supra), the Additional Rent Controller, instead of taking the statements made by the petitioner in the Eviction Petition as correct, had proceeded to analyze the facts and came to conclusion that the grounds of eviction had not been made out. This court upset that decision and allowed the landlord's revision Petition.