NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. P K WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal the appellant has preferred the second appeal. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the misuser was stopped when the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 12.2.1991 was passed. He has further contended that no notice of reentry has been issued to the respondent and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal as well as Additional Rent Controller be set aside. He has further contended that the finding of the Rent Control Tribunal that still commercial activity was going on in the premises was based on wrong premises.

(2.) Before dealing with the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant I would like to say few words on the conduct of the appellant.

(3.) The matter was argued at the time of admission on 5.4.1999 when Court did not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Malhotra had sought time to seek instructions as to whether on grant of some reasonable time the matter could be settled between the parties. At his request, the matter was adjourned to 14.4.1999. Again at the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant the matter was again adjourned to 15.4.1999. The matter was listed on 15.4.1999 and again at the request of the Counsel for the appellant it was adjourned to 3.5.1999. Again on 3.5.1999 adjournment was sought by the appellant on the ground that the matter has been referred to higher authorities and one week's adjournment may be granted to the appellant. At his request, the matter was again adjourned and was taken up on 10.5.1999, on which date again Mr. Malhotra stated that he had no instructions from the appellant.