TASNEEM AHMED Vs. HEM KUMARI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tasneem Ahmad has sought review of the compromise order passed against him on 25th February,1997.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contention raised in this review petition it would be appropriate to recapitulate the facts. The applicant was a tenant of respondent Mrs.Hem Kumari Gupta, respondent herein, in respect of premises bearing No.J-104, New Delhi South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. Premises consisted of one bed room, glazed varandah, one room covered with asbestoss sheets, one kitchen, one bath and one terrace in front, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500.00 , excluding electricity and water charges. The landlady/ owner of the premises filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) on the ground of her bonafide requirements. The learned Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 3rd August,1996 accepted her petition thereby declaring that her need was bonafide. Accordingly passed the order of eviction against the present applicant with further direction that he should vacate the premises within six months of that order. Against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, this applicant filed a Civil Revision which was listed as C.R.No.111/97. Notice was issued on 28th January,1997 and in response to the same the counsel for the respondent appeared on 24th February,1997. The counsel for this applicant made a statement on that date in the Court to the following effect:-

(3.) Accordingly the case was adjourned to 25th February,1997 on which date Mr.Tasneem Ahmad, applicant/ petitioner appeared and made a statement to the following effect: