SURAJ PARKASH SABHARWAL Vs. HARBANS KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal from order, presented under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter called the Act) from the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated 5/12/1967 dismissing the appellant's appeal from the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 4/9/1967 rejecting the application of Suraj Parkash for setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction made on 27/5/1966.

(2.) It appears that in the proceedings for eviction, 27/5/1966 was fixed for the remaining evidence of the landlord and 2/6/1966 for the evidence of the tenant. On 27/5/1966, neither the tenant nor his counsel appeared at the hearing, with the result that on that very day, an ex-parte order of eviction was made against him. On an application for setting aside the ex-parte order having been made, both the Courts below, on a consideration of the evidence, have come to the concurrent conclusion that the tenant had not shown any sufficient cause for his absence on 27/5/1966 and on this finding, declined to set aside the ex-parte decree.

(3.) Before me, an attempt has been made to persuade me to reevaluate the evidence and come to the conclusion that there was a just ground for the tenant not to appear on 27/5/1966, but I am unable to find any ground on Second Appeal under section 39 of the Act to re-assess the evidence for myself. Unless the appeal involves some substantial question of law, this Court has no power to interfere under section 39(2)of the Act with the conclusions of the Rent Control Tribunal. The challenge on the point canvassed does not even make out a question of law, leave alone a substantial question of law, within the contemplation of this sub-section.