J.B. KANSAL Vs. WARYAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case is the tenant of certain premises and the respondent is the landlord. An application for an order for recovery of possession was filed by the landlord on the ground specified in Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. After the tenant was served, he applied under Section 25B for leave to contest that application. For various reasons, the Additional Rent Controller refused leave by an order dated 28th January 1978. Consequently, the tenant moved this petition for revision of that order, and admitted it on 28th March, 1978.

(2.) Subsequently, on an application moved by the tenant, the question arose whether proceedings in execution of the order for recovery of possession passed by the Additional Rent Controller should be stayed or not. Mr. Hari Shankar, who entered appearance on behalf of the landlord, opposed the application for stay. Alternatively, he contended that even if an order for stay was made, security must be taken from the tenant in accordance with Order 41 Rule 5(2)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. On this point, I have heard counsel for the parties at some considerable length.

(3.) It is accepted by both sides that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does apply to an appeal under Section 30 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This has been held by a Division Bench of this court in Kedar Nath and another v. Smt. Mohani Devi & others, 1972 2 ILR(Del) 936, a decision to which I myself was a party. For the same reasons, the Code of Civil Procedure must apply to a proceeding for revision by this court under section 25B (8) of that Act.