MANMOHAN, J : (Oral)

Caveat No. 203/2008

1. Since the caveator has put in appearance, caveat petition stands disposed of.

C.M. No.15667/2008 (for exemption)

2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

RC.REV. 92/2008 & CM No.15668/08

3. Present revision petition has been filed for setting aside eviction order dated 12th September, 2008 passed in a petition filed under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”) whereby petitioner’s application for leave to defend has been dismissed.

4. Learned Counsel for petitioner urged that adoption of daughter by respondent-landlord was not in accord with law and, therefore, respondent daughter’s and son-in-law’s requirement could not be considered as respondent’s requirement. However, on a perusal of leave to defend application, I find that this ground has not been taken by petitioner-tenant before the Additional Rent Controller.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “J. Chatterjee v. Mohinder Kaur Uppal” reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3076 has that proceedings under Section 14D should not be allowed to be dragged on by granting leave to defend to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document