SH. HARI KISHAN v. MOHAN LAL

Through: Mr. Gyan Mitra, Advocate. Versus MOHAN LAL ……….Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

The order impugned before this Court is the order dated

03.09.2011 which had dismissed the application filed by the tenant seeking a review of the judgment dated 30.10.2009. On

30.10.2009, the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed; the application for leave to defend filed by the tenant had been dismissed. This order dated 30.10.2009 was the subject CM (M) No. 1224/2011 matter of the review petition; this review petition had been preferred on 03.09.2011 which was admittedly much after the prescribed period of limitation. It was un-accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay. That apart on merits, the impugned order has correctly noted that the judgment dated

30.10.2009 in no manner suffers from any infirmity.

Record shows that the petitioner Mohan Lal was the owner of the suit premises; the respondent had been inducted as a tenant about 20 years ago; after the death of her mother, the petitioner had become owner of the suit property; this was by virtue of GPA, sale deed and gift deed; it is also not in dispute that the respondent was paying rent to him and rent receipts were being issued up to 31.03.2008.

Even in the application for leave to defend status of the petitioner as owner was not disputed; these facts were noted in the correct perspective in the judgment dated 30.10.2009. There is also no dispute to the proposition that in an eviction petition the relationship of landlord-tenant is the relevant crux. The ground on which review had been sought of the judgment dated 30.10.2009 was that the father of the tenant is a senior citizen aged 80 years; he had suffered a hip injury and it would be difficult for him to find another alternate accommodation; this did not fit into the CM (M) No. 1224/2011 parameters and law laid down by the Legislature under Order XLVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’); the trial Court had rightly noted that these submissions do not call for a review of judgment dated

30.10.2009. Neither was there any error apparent on the face of the record and nor there any new fact which the petitioner inspite of due diligence was not able to adduce; impugned order dismissing the review petition thus does not suffer from any infirmity. This petition is without any merit.

Dismissed. INDERMEET KAUR, J OCTOBER 20, 2011 a CM (M) No. 1224/2011