R.S. BAKSHI Vs. H.K. MALHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of dismissal of the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'), present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners.

(2.) MR . Rajiv Nayyar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that in view of the plain language of Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), it was sufficient that the respondent was allotted a flat by the Society. In support of his contentions, he has cited Ganpat Ram Sharma v. Smt. Gayatri Devi, 1987(32) DLT 371 : 1987(2) RCR (Rent) 1562 (SC); Vardesh Chander Chanana v. Prem Nath and another, 1981(19) DLT 346 : 1981(1) RCR (Rent) 561 (Delhi), Baij Nath v. Bhagat Singh and another, 1991(43) DLT 325, Mr. T.N. Rai v. Rent Control Tribunal, 1977(III) AD 579 and Hem Chand Baid v. Prem Wati Parekh, AIR 1980 Delhi 1 : 1979(2) RCR (Rent) 328 (Delhi).

(3.) I am afraid that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered in these proceedings. Admittedly, an application under Order 12. Rule 6 of the CPC was filed on the basis of respondent not denying the fact that a flat was allotted by Delhi Government Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited which fact was alleged by the petitioners in the eviction petition. However, when an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC was filed by the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 stated in the reply as under :-