W.P. (C) No. 1403/2013

Page 1 of 13

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

W.P.(C) 1403/2013

RAM KISHAN & SONS

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr. Anip Sachthey, Mr. Mohit

Paul, Ms. Shagun Matta and

Mr.Saakaar Sardana, Advs.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA

..... Respondent

Through

Mr. Saqib and Ms. Shipra Shukla,

Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

CM Nos.2650-51/2013 (Exemption)

1

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No. 1403/2013

2

This writ petition seeks to lay a challenge to Chapter III A of the

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’);

submission being that the substantive provisions of the said Act do not

provide any period for filing an application for leave to defend but the

period of 15 days which has been prescribed in the IIIrd Schedule of the

2013:DHC:1165-DB

W.P. (C) No. 1403/2013

Page 2 of 13

said Act is ultra vires; the provisions of the Schedule are inconsistent

with the provisions of Section 25-B (4); they accordingly be declared

ultra vires. This is the thrust of the argument addressed before us.

3

Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the

respondent/landlord against the petitioner/tenant under Section 14 (1)(e)

of the said Act on the ground of bonafide requirement for the premises

bearing No. G-18, 19 & 24, Marina Arcade, Connaught Circus, New

Delhi. This was in May, 2008. The petitioner is a tenant in the

aforenoted premises since the year 1937. Pursuant to the amendments

incorporated in the said Act from time to time, the petitioner exercised

his right to get the respondent evicted on the ground of bonafide

requirement. Summons were duly served upon the petitioner. He,

however, chose not to file his leave to defend inspite of service; the

whole controversy being agitated upon whether the service had been

duly served upon the petitioner or not. The Additional Rent Controller

(ARC) had returned a finding that Rajender Prasad an employee of the

petitioner had been duly served with the summons and the leave to

defend not having been filed within the prescribed period of 15 days, a

decree of eviction automatically followed in favour of the

2013:DHC:1165-DB

W.P. (C) No. 1403/2013

Page 3 of 13

respondent/landlord.

4

Revision petition was filed before the High Court which,

upholding the view of the ARC, dismissed the revision petition vide

order dated 06.03.2012. Against the order of the single Bench of this

Court, a Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Supreme Court

which was dismissed on 04.04.2012. The said order reads as under:-

undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today.”

One year extended period of time had been given to the petitioner

to vacate the suit premises which period we have been informed would

expire sometime in April, 2013.

5

Undisputedly, the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from

the suit premises by all forums and he has exercised his option to agitate

his right, right up to the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the

petitioner however submits that his SLP was in fact dismissed in limine

2013:DHC:1165-DB

W.P. (C) No. 1403/2013

Page 4 of 13

on 04.04.2012 and a review petition has been filed against the order

dated 06.03.2012 which is permissible in view of the fact that the SLP

had been dismissed in limine.

6

This submission may not be quite correct but without adverting to

the scope of the review petition, the case of the petitioner must also

otherwise fail.

7

Chapter III of the said Act deals with control of eviction of

tenants. Section 14 protects a tenant from eviction. Section 14 (1)(e)

stat