Courts must expedite hearings and prevent unnecessary adjournments in eviction matters based on bona fide necessity, adhering to prior judicial directives.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

C.R.P. 49/2021

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 6th July 2021 passed by the ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC (East), Karkardooma Courts, vide which the leave to defend application pending before the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter, "ARC") in the Petitioner's case has been adjourned to 15th November 2021. The brief background to this petition is that the Petitioner-landlady, had filed an eviction petition against the Respondent-tenant, in respect of the shop admeasuring 8ft*16ft in dimensions, bearing Shop no.7, F-14 A, Parwana Road, Jagatpuri, Delhi-110051, on the ground of bona fide necessity under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In the said eviction petition, notice is stated to have been issued on 30th November 2019, post which, the Respondent filed an application for leave to defend.

3. The grievance of the Petitioner in this petition is that the leave to defend application of the Respondent in this matter is not being heard, and is continuously being adjourned from time to time. On 25th February, 2020, the matter i.e., RC/ARC No. 136/19, was adjourned to 1st May, 2020 for the Respondent to file a rejoinder. On 22nd July, 2020, time was again granted for filing of the rejoinder to the reply. On 30th July, 2020, the matter was again adjourned at the request of the ld. Counsel for the Respondent. On 17th August, 2020, the matter was adjourned due to the circular dated 15th August, 2020 of the High Court. On 19th September, 2020 as well, none appeared for the Respondent and the matter was adjourned. On 22nd September, 2020, none appeared for the Respondent and the matter was again adjourned. Thereafter on 19th January, 2021, time was given to the Respondent to file an additional rejoinder to the additional reply. Finally, on 6th July, 2021, the matter is stated to have been again adjourned to 15th November, 2021 owing to the circular of the Delhi High Court.

4. Mr. Harsh Kumar, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner refers to the previous judgment of this Court passed by a ld. Single Judge on 16th July, 2020, in CM(M) 379/2020 titled Sheela Devi @ Sheela Bansal v. Preeti Aroroa wherein specific orders were passed by the Court that the leave to defend application would be heard by the ARC, by fixing a date on 22nd July, 2020. However, he submits that despite said judgment having been passed, the matter is being adjourned time and again at the request of the Respondents, and circulars of the High Court are being cited for not hearing the leave to defend application. The Petitioner has urged that the leave to defend application is a matter which is of an urgent nature as the landlady has been waiting endlessly for getting the said application heard.

5. This Court has perused the orders of the ARC in RC/ARC No. 136/19. This Court has also perused the judgment dated 16th July 2020, passed by the ld. Single Judge where it has clearly been directed that a date would be fixed for hearing the matter by the ARC on the leave to defend application on 22nd July, 2020. Once such a specific order was passed in this particular case, there was no occasion for the ARC to continue to adjourn the matter citing the circulars of the High Court, as also giving repeated adjournments to the Respondent on the ground that no adverse orders should be passed during the pandemic. Such orders would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the judgment passed by