PARVINDER KUMAR Vs. SAIN RAM JHINGTA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The extant Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders recorded by learned Appellate Authority on 19th March, 2015, upon Parvinder Kumar's (petitioner herein) application, constituted therebefore, under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, wherein, it declined him leave to incorporate in his reply, averments (a) of, his occupying the demised premises as a licencee, (b) his being amenable to eviction therefrom, upon, the landlord concerned, instituting a civil suit for eviction against him. The aforesaid application was hence filed at a belated stage.

(2.) Before proceeding to determine, the validity of the impugned pronounced recorded by the learned Appellate Authority, it is imperative to extract all germane thereto facts; (a) of, the landlord in his apposite eviction petition, in apposite column No.16 thereof, declaring Parvinder Kumar, the petitioner herein, to be occupying, with his consent the demised premises as a subletee; (b) in reply thereto the aforesaid Parvinder Kumar, did not make any specific contention, for his hence repudiating the aforesaid declaration, occurring, in apposite column No.16 of the eviction petition. (c) Ex. AW1/E comprising a verdict recorded by the learned Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No. 1-R/14 of 2012, wherein, landlord Sain Ram Jhingta and petitioner herein Parvinder Kumar, ARE respectively arrayed as appellant and respondent, making, a graphic declaration, in paragraph No.17, of Parvinder Kumar being a valid sub tenant in the demised premises, (d) given his occupation(s) thereof, as, a sub tenant being under a valid written consent of the landlord. (e) In paragraph No.17 of Ex.AW1/E, a pronouncement occurring, of, the aforesaid conclusion arising from the Appellate Authority concerned, making, an interpretation of the apposite rent deed, borne in Ex.PW4/A.

(3.) The aforesaid conclusions occurring in the afore-referred exhibits, were, contrarily strived to be ridden of their efficacy, by the aforesaid Parvinder Kumar, only during, the pendency of an apposite appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, directed, against the pronouncement recorded by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. 1-2 of 2013, (i) by his therebefore belatedly casting, an application constituted under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, wherein, he concerted, to obtain leave of the Appellate Authority concerned, to incorporate in his reply, Averments, (a) of his holding the demised premises as a licencee; (b) his landlord concerned being entitled to seek his eviction therefrom by instituting a regular suit, for possession before the Civil Court concerned.