REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8501 OF 2009

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19921 of 2006)

Prithipal Singh ….. Appellant

VERSUS

Satpal Singh (dead) through its LRs. ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2.

This is an appeal arising out of a Judgment and order dated 30^th

of October, 2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in

C.M. No. 65 of 2002, whereby the High Court had dismissed the

petition filed by the landlord/appellant and upheld the order passed

by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The order of the Additional

Rent Controller holding that he is conferred with power to set aside

an ex-parte order for eviction in the exercise of its jurisdiction under

Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the

1

Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) was thereby affirmed

by the High Court in appeal.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be stated as

follows in a nutshell :-

The landlord/appellant filed an eviction petition under Section

14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short “the Rent Act”)

before the Rent Controller, Delhi for eviction of the

Tenant/Respondent from No. 1-C/46, Ramesh Nagar, Namdhari

Colony, New Delhi (in short “the tenanted premises”). After filing of

the eviction proceeding, summons was issued in compliance with

Section 25(3) (a) of the Rent Act to the tenant/respondent to appear

before the Rent Controller on a specified date for the purpose of

defending the eviction proceeding. The tenant/respondent filed an

affidavit by way of an application praying for leave to defend the

eviction proceeding after delay of 8 days from the date of service of

notice upon him. By an order dated 28^th of February, 2001, the

Affidavit (the application for leave to defend) was rejected by the

Additional Rent Controller as it was filed 8 days beyond the date

mentioned in the summons. Since there was a delay of 8 days,

Additional Rent Controller held that under the Rent Act, he was not

2

conferred with any power to condone the delay in filing such affidavit.

Since the prayer for leave to defend the proceeding was rejected as a

follow up action, an eviction order was passed by the Additional Rent

Controller, Delhi in favour of the landlord/appellant on 28^th of

February, 2001 in compliance with sub-section (4) of Section 25 B of

the Rent Act.

4.

Feeling aggrieved, the tenant/respondent filed an application for

setting aside the aforesaid order dated 28th of February, 2001

passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi under Order 9 Rule

13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Code and also

prayed for leave to defend the eviction proceeding after condoning

the delay in filing the same. By an order dated 7^th of December,

2001, the application for setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction

passed on 28^th of February, 2001 was allowed and the eviction

proceeding was restored to its original file by the Additional Rent

Controller, Delhi. The Additional Rent Controller, by the aforesaid

order, also allowed the prayer of the tenant/respondent by granting

leave to contest the eviction proceeding in compliance with Section

25(B)(4) of the Rent Act.

3

5.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Addl. Rent Controller,

Delhi, the Landlord/Appellant filed an application under Article 227 of

the Constitution, which came to be registered as CM No.65/2002,

before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The High Court, by the

impugned judgment, had dismissed the petition filed by the

landlord/appellant holding that there was no patent error or erroneous

exercise of jurisdiction by the Trial Court in setting aside order of

eviction thereby restoring the affidavit filed by