Avis Fatimat and ors. Vs. Pushpa Devi and Another

Avis Fatimat and ors. vs Pushpa Devi and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 06, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/693860

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/693860
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Vijender Jain, J.
Decided On: Aug 06, 1999
Case Number: C.M. (Main) Petition No. 276/97
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 15(4)--Order for deposit of rent--Order passed in the absence of the party who was not present on the date of hearing--Such party cannot subsequently complain and challenge the order passed on the ground that it was passed in his absence. -

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 15(4)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Avis Fatimat and ors.

Advocate Mr. Mohd. Adid, Adv

Respondent

Pushpa Devi and Another

Legal References

Acts: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 15(4)
Reported In: 1999VAD(Delhi)604; 81(1999)DLT205; 1999(50)DRJ845; 1999RLR481

Excerpt

delhi rent control act, 1958 - section 15(4)--order for deposit of rent--order passed in the absence of the party who was not present on the date of hearing--such party cannot subsequently complain and challenge the order passed on the ground that it was passed in his absence. - .....for the petitioner has contended that the order under section 15(4) was passed on 9.3.1994 when nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner or on behalf of the respondent. counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that as a matter of fact he was not aware whether any order under section 15(4) was passed on 9.3.1994. herefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the final order subsequently passed by the addl. rent controller dated 6.8.1996 be quashed. in support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has cited nirankar nath wahi & others v. fifth addl. district judge, muradabad and others and jagmohan lal v. tara chand verma 1982 (2) rlr 108. another contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that no prejudice has been caused to the respondent as she was entitled to take the rent only after the decision of the matter when the matter was finally decided on 6.8.1996. 2. i have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. none of the authorities cited by the counsel for petitioner helps the petitioner in view of peculiar facts of this case. let us examine the submission of the counsel in the light of fact that the eviction petition was filed in the year 1998. dates were given, parties were present from 1988 till 9.3.1994 on which date nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. was the addl. rent controller, not justified in passing the order when nobody was present on behalf of the respondent? pleadings of the parties were before the addl. rent controller and no litigant can adopt tactics by not appearing in the court and subsequently take the plea that when he was not present, no order could have been passed. if that is allowed to be done, the proceedings in a court cannot come to an end. in this particular case after 9.3.1994 when the order under section 15(4) was passed, the matter was listed for recording the evidence of the parties on 13.9.1994. from.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order under Section 15(4) was passed on 9.3.1994 when nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner or on behalf of the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that as a matter of fact he was not aware whether any order under Section 15(4) was passed on 9.3.1994. herefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the final order subsequently passed by the Addl. Rent Controller dated 6.8.1996 be quashed. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has cited Nirankar Nath Wahi & Others v. Fifth Addl. District Judge, Muradabad and others and Jagmohan Lal v. Tara Chand Verma 1982 (2) RLR 108. Another contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that no prejudice has been caused to the respondent as she was entitled to take the rent only after the decision of the matter when the matter was finally decided on 6.8.1996.

2. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. None of the authorities cited by the counsel for petitioner helps the petitioner in view of peculiar facts of this case. Let us examine the submission of the counsel in the light of fact that the eviction petition was filed in the year 1998. Dates were given, parties were present from 1988 till 9.3.1994 on which date nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. Was the Addl. Rent Controller, not justified in passing the order when nobody was present on behalf of the respondent? Pleadings of the parties were before the Addl. Rent Controller and no litigant can adopt tactics by not appearing in the court and subsequently take the plea that when he was not present, no order could have been passed. If that is allowed to be done, the proceedings in a Court cannot come to an end. In this particular case after 9.3.1994 when the order under Section 15(4) was passed, the matter was listed for recording the evidence of the parties on 13.9.1994. From 13.9.1994 till 6.8.1996 when the judgment was delivered according to the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, the matter was adjourned on different dates, then parties led their evidence. At no stage, according to him, this order came to his knowledge. This submission has no force. Once a matter is pending in the Court any order passed in that proceedings when parties are attending on subsequent proceeding, to say that a particular order of a particular date has not come to his knowledge is devoid of any merit. The petitioner was very much aware of the order passed on 9.3.1994. He has taken part in the proceedings, led evidence, took his change got an adverse order, that order was again appealed before the Rent Control Tribunal and now before this Court.

3. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case no interference is called for.

4. I do not fine any merit in the petition.

5. Dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1999 Same Parties Avis Fatimat and ors. vs Pushpa Devi and Another Same Subject Property Same Judge Vijender Jain, J. Acts & Sections Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 15(4)

Property