2005 (5) TMI 675

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l 24, 2003 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal which dismissed the appeal of the respondent herein arising out of the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi who decreed the eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958( hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") was set aside and the case was remitted back to the trial Court. Aggrieved against this order, the present petition by way of special leave petition was filed. It may be relevant to mention here that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the respondent from the premises under his tenancy in the House No. 11/8, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act. The premises in question having one drawing room, one bed-r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ler after review of the evidence on the record accepted the evidence as none has appeared to rebut the same and granted a decree for eviction on being satisfied that all the ingredients of Section 14(1)(h) of the Act stood established by Order dated 21st November, 2002. Thereafter, an application was filed by the respondent under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree dated November 21, 2002. This application was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller by its order dated March 5, 2003. This order rejecting the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree was not challenged and it attained finality. Howeve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he High Court of Delhi on July 23, 2004, the present Special Leave Petition was filed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The first and foremost point is when the summonses were served on the respondent and he did not appear, he has to thank himself for serious lapse on his part. Both learned Additional Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Tribunal have found that the summonses were served by registered post with acknowledgment due as well as through the process of the Court. Despite that the respondent has chosen not to put in appearance. Therefore, there was no option left on the part of the Additional Rent Controller to pro....