RAJENDRA KUAMR @ RAJAN Vs. DEEP SHIKHA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/respondents.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-landlord/respondents filed Rent Control Case No.03 of 2016 (Smt. Deep Sikha Vs. Rajendra Kumar) on 11.04.2016. Perusal of the copy of order sheet of the court below filed as Annexure 6 to the petition shows that about 76 dates were fixed in the said case. It further shows that various applications were moved by the defendant-tenant/petitioner from time to time. On 31.08.2018 the court below rejected the Application 93-Ga of the defendant-tenant/petitioner for amendment, observing that the defendant-tenant wants to keep the case pending by adopting delaying tactices. On 29.09.2018, the defendant-tenant filed some evidences. He was granted time till 06.10.2018 to file complete evidences. On 06.10.2018 further time was granted to the defendant-tenant. On 11.10.2018 the defendant-tenant again moved an Adjournment Application which was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- and the next date was fixed for 17.10.2018 on which date he again moved an Adjournment Application 101-Ga on the ground that he being busy in some essential work could not make preparation for evidence. He had also not deposited the cost of Rs.500/- subject to which his Adjournment Application was allowed on 11.10.2018. By the impugned order dated 17.10.2018, the court below has rejected the Adjournment Application 101-Ga on the ground that firstly the cost imposed on 11.10.2018 has not been deposited and secondly, the defendant wants to delay the disposal of the case.

(3.) Sri A. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioner submits as under: