ANANYA KAKKAR Vs. REENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioner on one hand and the respondent on the other is admitted. The tenancy portion is described as one room with kitchen, besides latrine and bathroom on the top floor of property No.40-A, Old DDA Janta Flats, Chilla Village, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi-110091. The respondentlandlady had moved a petition (E. No.73/2013) for an order of eviction against the petitioner-tenant on the ground under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioner in response to the special summons under Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 had submitted an application seeking leave to contest. The said application was dismissed by additional rent controller (ARC) for nonprosecution and as "not pressed" by order dated 05.10.2015, this leading to the eviction order being passed on 06.11.2015. An application for review was filed which was dismissed by subsequent order dated 28.03.2016.

(2.) The petition at hand challenges the above mentioned orders.

(3.) After some hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the application for leave to contest could not have been dismissed as "not pressed" or for want of prosecution in the manner done by order dated 05.10.2015. He, however, submitted that while the respondent concedes to the restoration of the said application for leave to contest and consequent setting aside of the order of eviction as indeed the order whereby the review application was dismissed, the petitioner-tenant be put to terms inasmuch as she has not been paying the rent since April, 2012 fixed @ Rs.3,000/- per month and nor has complied with the directions of paying user charges @ Rs.1,000/- per month for which proof was required to be submitted in terms of order dated 25.05.2017 passed in these proceedings.