RAM PANJWANI Vs. SHANTI DEVI SUKHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent. She filed on April, 15, 1977, an application for his eviction under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter the Act). After issues were framed, the tenant made an application for discovery of documents under Order 11 Rule 12 C.P.C. The learned Additional Rent Controller in her order dated November 28, 1978, stated that what were required to be proved by the applicant landlady were (1) her ownership (2) insufficiency of present accommodation. Ownership shall be deemed to have been admitted since it has not been specifically challenged in the written statement. As regards sufficiency of accommodation on document except the plan has anything to do with the sufficiency of accommodation and the plan had been filed. Therefore, the learned Additional Rent Controller saw no reason to direct the petitioner to discover documents in her possession or power and rejected the application. Hence this revision.

(2.) The first question that arose is whether a revision is maintainable against an order like the one impugned here. Sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 25-B of the Act read as follows :-

(3.) A similar proviso as the one under examination came to be examined by the Supreme Court in the State of Rajasthan v. Leela Jain and others, 1965 1 SCR 276, where the provision under consideration was as follows :-