PARVESH KANTA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the petition of the land-lady. The petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In spite of service of summons, the respondent did not appear before the Additional Rent Controller nor any leave to defend application was filed within the statutory period. However, learned counsel for the respondent says that leave to defend was filed on 10th July, 1998 after the expiry of the statutory period. This is how the Additional Rent Controller has recorded the proceedings dated 13th July, 1988:

(2.) However, on a technical ground that the land-lady has not averred that she needs the premises bona fide for use as residence and that she has no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation as words 'residential' has not been pleaded in the eviction petition. Additional Rent Controller, has considered the omission of the word 'residential' to be so fatal that he has dismissed the eviction petition.

(3.) Let me deal with the eviction petition, as filed by the petitioner. In paragraph 4 of the eviction petition against the claim whether the premises are residential or non-residential, it was mentioned in the petition 'residential'. Even in paragraph 5 of the petition, it was mentioned 'the premises was let out to the respondent for residential purposes wherein the respondent has been residing'. Inparagraph 18, it was mentioned:-