IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Inderjeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
Seema Khattar - Respondent
CM(M) 1412 of 2022
Decided On : 21-12-2022
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
CM APPL. 54392/2022 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 1412/2022 & CM APPL. 54393/2022 (for stay)
3. Mr. Praveen Suri, learned counsel appears for the petitioner and submits that the learned Additional Rent Controller (`ARC') has refused to take the application under Order XI Rules 1, 2, 12, 13 and 14 r/w Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, on record on the basis that the aforesaid application is not maintainable in the eviction petitions, filed under Section 14 (1) e r/w Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1957.
4. Learned counsel submits that on that basis, the ARC refused to even take the application on record.
5. By way of the present petition, all that the petitioner seeks is that the application under Order 11 of the CPC, 1908, be taken on record and decided in accordance with law.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that in such matters, where the Trial Court has not even taken on record the application and decided the same in accordance with law, no useful purpose would be served in issuing notice to the respondent for the reason that it will entail delay in disposal of the eviction petition pending before the ARC.
7. The right of a litigant to file and maintain an application is indelible unless barred by law and this Court is of the opinion that the rights of a litigant to agitate their particular issue cannot be diluted, subject however, to the limitations under any law as well as the power conferred upon the courts to decide the same.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the ARC to take on record the application under Order XI Rules 1, 2, 12, 13 & 14, CPC, 1908 and decide the same in accordance with law.
9. It is informed that the eviction petition is listed on 04.01.2023.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the ARC is at liberty to deal with the application on its own merits.
11. The petition along with pending application stands disposed of in the above terms.
A litigant's right to file and maintain an application is fundamental and should not be curtailed without proper legal basis.
The need for expedited hearing and disposal of applications under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, considering the petitioner's retired status and livelihood concerns.
The court set aside an order dismissing an impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, directing the trial court to reconsider the petition after considering all relevant contentions regarding....
Minor omissions in eviction petitions do not nullify cause of action; the essence lies in establishing necessary facts for a decree.
The tenant's failure to pay rent and negligible claims of ignorance do not negate the validity of eviction orders under the Delhi Rent Control Act, affirming tenant's obligations despite reliance on ....
Non-compliance with court orders and failure to pay rent can lead to eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Emphasis on strict adherence to timelines for disposal of appeals
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.