DEVRAJ MASON Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 151 CPC has been made on behalf of petitioners for revival of the instant petition in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Harish Chander and ors reported in JT 2001 (Suppl -2) SC 205.

(2.) THE petitioner had suffered an eviction order at the hands of learned Additional Rent Controller on 18th July 1991 under Section 14(1) (a) & (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act). Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Rent Control Tribunal which was dismissed by the learned RCT on 1st October 1999. The petitioner assailed the appellate Tribunal's order by filing a CM(Main) petition being CM(M) 665 of 1999 and petitioner obtained a stay order from this Court in 1999 against the aforesaid order. The CM Main petition was listed for final disposal vide order dated 18th November 2000. The petitioner continued to enjoy the stay throughout and whenever the matter came up for final hearing, it was not argued for one reason or the other. In the meantime, respondent/landlord died and an application to bring Lrs of respondent/landlord on record along with an application for condonation of delay was moved. The matter proceeded on this application and ultimately Lrs were brought on record. The matter again came up for hearing several times on the Board of the Court for final disposal, but it was not argued. On 6th September, 2006, 26th April 2007, none appeared for the petitioner but the matter was not dismissed and kept on board. On 30th April 2007, 1st May, 2007, 7th May, 2007, 2nd July, 2007, requests were made on behalf of the petitioner for adjournment. On 10th July, 2007 counsel for petitioner was not present. Again on 1 st August 2007 and 1st July 2008 adjournments were sought on behalf of petitioner when the matter was taken up for final arguments. On 10th November 2008 again none appeared for the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 10 th November 2008 dismissed this petition on merits.

(3.) COUNSEL for petitioner made an application for recalling the order on the ground that on 10th November 2008, none had appeared for the petitioner when the matter was disposed of. This application was heard and when the order on this application was being dictated, the counsel for petitioner made submissions in the Court that the order dated 10th November 2008 be recalled and the petitioner be allowed to withdraw the petition as the petitioner intends to prefer a second appeal against the order of the first appellate court since the law permits the petitioner to prefer a second appeal. This Court although observed that sufficient opportunities had been granted to the petitioner for hearing the petition and no case was made out for recalling the order on the ground of not giving opportunity, but considering the request of the petitioner to withdraw the petition so as to have an opportunity to file second appeal, if permitted by law, allowed the prayer to that extent and recalled the order dated 10th November 2008 and dismissed the petition as withdrawn. Now, the present application has been made by the petitioner submitting that he preferred a second appeal but learnt that the second appeal was not maintainable, therefore, he should be allowed to revive this petition.