SOM NATH RAINA Vs. KRIPA RAM BHATEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion the second appeal has to be allowed as the issue raised is fully covered by the decHc'n of Avadh Behari-J. in R. K. Pareekh v. Uma Verma. (2) lktent Control Journal 423(1). In that view the civil revision does not survive for consideration and is liable to be dismissed.

(2.) It is necessary to state a few brief facts. The respondent landlord filed a petition against the present petitioner/appellant seeking the eviction of the latter under the terms of the proviso to clause (e) of sub-section I of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The application was dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 25-B of the Act introduced by the amendments of 1975-76. Summons was issued in the form specified in the third schedule to the tenant and served on him on 21st October, 1976. He had to file his application for leave to contest the landlord's petition in the appropriate manner specified in the section on or before 5th of November, 1976. But this application was actually filed on 11th November, 1976 for certain reasons which need not be detailed here. Along with this application the tenant also prayed for condonation of delay in the filing of the application.

(3.) All the matters came up before the Rent Controller on the 12th November, 1976. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the provision of the Limitation Act had no application. Consequently the tenant's application for leave to defend was also dismissed. But the landlord's eviction petiion was not allowed in view of a curious circumstance. The learned Rent Controller noticed on a perusal of the petition that the necessary averments regarding the service of a notice termination of tenancy were not in the petition and found tha' the petition was therefore defective and incomplete. He rejected the petition instead of ordering eviction of the tenant.