SANTOSH JAIN Vs. SURESH CHAND BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated 16.8.1996, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller refusing leave to defend to the petitioner tenant.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition may be briefly noted :

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The main submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Additional Rent Controller has acted with material irregularity in passing the impugned order which amounts to adjudicating upon the defences raised, which could only be done after trial. The submission of the petitioner is well founded. With regard to the plea for partial eviction, the learned Additional Rent Controller appointed a Local Commissioner, who went to the site and reported the existence of certain structures, described as 'mumty', and the learned Rent Controller then proceeded to hold that the structures on the first floor could not be regarded as permanent and from the very nature of the structure it could be taken to be a part of the ground floor. This was not the stage for appointment of Local Commissioner to gather evidence and then determine whether petition was for partial eviction or not. Even with regard to the letting purpose the learned Additional Rent Controller adjudicating upon the documents that were produced and determined the creditibility and effect of the assessment order, which referred to the sole proprietary concern M/s. Ess-Sonu, which was engaged in the export of readymade garments.