Judgment · High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NE RC.REV. 180/2011 DELHI SUKHBIR SINGH JAIN Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate versus (e " PREM SAGAR GUPTA AND ORS Through: None CORAM: IION'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN ORDER 18.05.2011 ..... Respondents RC.REV. 180/2011 and CM NO. 9807/2011 : I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord. The petitioner - landlord had filed an eviction petition against the respondents - tenant in respect of the tenanted premises under Section 1 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The respondents filed an application before the learned Additional Rent Controller seeking leave to contest the eviction petition. The leame,J Additional Rent Controller has vide impugned order dated llth February,2011 granted the leave to the respondents to contest the eviction petition. The petitioner - landlord has felt aggrieved and has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present revision petition under Section 25- B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the leave application of the respondents should have been straightaway rejected since it had not been filed within the statutory period of 15 days from the date of receipt of summons by them. It was contended that the ,url-orrs were served on respondent no. 1, who is one of the joint-tenants along with other six respondents, by registered AD post on 3l't Octobel2009 and other respondents were served on 3'd November , 2009. Summons by ordinary process were served on 5th November,2009. As per the affidavit of respondent no. 1 filed before the trial Court he had received one summon on 3ltt October,2009 and another on 6tl' RC.REV.180/2011 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA nage I of2 I i I --a > I November, 2009 while as per the affidavits of other six respondents they were served on 6tl' November , 2009). Counsel submitted that the period of limitation for filing the leave application commenced from the daie when for the first time summons wele received by respondent no.

1 and that even though other respondents had received the summons on a subsequent date but all of them being joint tenants service of summons on one of them on 31tt October, 2009 should have been treated as service of summons on each one, of the joint tenants and consequently the leave to defend application filed on 21T November,2009 should have been rejected as being time barred. On merits of the impugned order, learned counsel argued that the respondents had not made out any case for grant of leave to them to contest the eviction petition filed by the petitioner - landlord and a bare reading of the eviction petition, contents of which were not specifically refuted by the respondents, would show that the requirement of the petitioner in respect of the premises initially let out "to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents late Shri Arjun Dass Gupta was bonafide. l on going through the impugned order I do not find any material inegularity in that order justifying any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.