VED PRAKASH Vs. OM PRAKASH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M. Appl. No. 10803/2009 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 759/2009 & C.M. Appl. No. 10802/2009 In challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 06.06.2009 passed by Sh. Raghubir Singh, ARC (E) in eviction petition bearing E-788/06. The said eviction petition has been preferred by the respondent-landlord under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the petitioner-tenant is the respondent in the said eviction petition.

(2.) THE petitioner-tenant filed the application seeking leave to defend within the period of limitation. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application seeking amendment of the application for leave to defend, on the ground of the petitioner coming to know of certain subsequent developments having a bearing on the eviction petition. The application has been rejected by the learned ARC on the ground that the summary procedure evolved to try petitions under Section 14(1)(e) under the Delhi Rent Control Act does not provide for amendment of the application seeking leave to defend, which has to be preferred within a period of 15 days of the service of the notice.

(3.) IN the present case, though the amendments sought by the petitioner pertained to developments which have taken place subsequent to the filing of the application seeking leave to defend, the application has been filed highly belatedly. The amendment application was filed only on or about 06.02.2009, whereas the "subsequent development" sought to be incorporated are of much earlier period. On this short ground the application of the petitioner was liable to be rejected.