Krishan Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Ram Lal Kohli - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
delhi rent control act, 1958 - section 14(1)(d) and 14(1)(e)--held--that in this case, the only ground for not accepting the order dated 7-9-1983 passed under section 14(1)(e) of the act is that the tenant was not served by ordinary process. on a perusal of the record and even otherwise there does not appear to be any dispute that the petitioner tenant was, in fact, served by registered post as the endorsement with regard to refusal has not been seriously challenged.;that it is clear that service was effected on the petitioner in view of order 5 rule 19-a(2) cpc. as such, the challenge to the order passed by the addl. rent controller, dated 27-2-1985 is without merit and consequently the order dated 7-9-1983 evicting the tenant is valid. the order was set aside. - - kishan kumar aggarwal had sought to make out a case on the ground that the original application for leave to defend and the a companying affidavit' had not been signed by him' and he had not been 'served by ordinary process'.the additional rent controller found that summons bad been issued both in the ordinary way as well as by registered post and service had been effected by registered post as the endorsement on the envelope clearly indicated that it had been 'refused'.it was further observed by mr.leila seth, j. (1) these are two connected matters pertaining to litigation between the same landlord and tenant and are being disposed of together. (2) these are the brief facts. on 23rd march, 1978, mr. ram lal kohli, the landlord of 164a, new friends colony, new delhi, let out the above-mentioned property to two brothers, mr. yogesh kumar and mr. krishan kumar aggarwal. the agreement of tenancy was for a period of three years. (3) sometime in november, 1981 the landlord filed a petition under section 14(1)(d) of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), which was numbered as 15 of 1982. subsequently, on 1st june, 1983 he filed another petition under section 14(1)(e) of the act, which was numbered as 341 of 1983. notice of this petition was served at kanpur on mr. yogesh kumar on 10th june, 1983. the notice sent to mr. krishan kumar aggarwal, at the same time, by registered post acknowledgment due was returned with the endorsement on the envelope dated 10th june, 1983, 'refused'. nothings on the envelope appear to indicate that service was sought to be effected earlier on 8th and 9th june, 1983. (5) on 7th september, 1983, ms. marnta sehgal, additional rent controller rejected the said application for leave to defend and passed an eviction order, but granted six months time to vacate the premises. (6) thereafter, on 6th october, 1983, mr. krishan kumar aggarwal filed an application under section 25b(9) of the act for review of the order dated 7th september, 1983. on 20th february, 1984, he also filed an application under order 9, rule 13 read with section 151, civil procedure code for review of the order dated 7th september, 1983. he filed yet another application on the same date under section 25b of the act for permission to contest the petition. (7) in the meantime mr. yogesh kumar filed civil revision no. 241 of 1984, challenging the order dated 7th september, 1983. the said civil revision was dismissed by this court on 17th april, 1984. the order of this. court was as follows : 'i have heard the parties and also perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of his application for leave to defend. i find that it does not disclose any fact which would disentitle the landlord to an order of eviction under clause (e) of proviso of section 14(1) of the said act. dismissed'.(8) subsequently, on 25th april, 1984/2nd may, 1984, mr. yogesh kumar filed an application under order 41 rule 5, civil procedure code, which he withdrew on 8th may, 1984. consequently, mr. justice j.d. jain ordered that it be dismissed as withdrawn. (9) thereafter, on 30th january, 1985, the additional rent controller, mr. a.k. garg decreed eviction suit no. 15 of 1982 filed by the landlord under section 14(1)(d) of the act on the ground of non-residence, against both the brothers mr. yogesh and mr. krisha.n kumar aggarwal. (10) on 27th fcbrua.ry, 1985, mr. m.l. meista. additional rein controller, dismissed the above-mentioned three applications moved by mi. krishan kumar aggarwal. the court observed that mr. kishan kumar aggarwal had sought to make out a case on the ground that the original application for leave to defend and the a companying affidavit' had not been signed by him' and he had not been 'served by ordinary process'. the additional rent controller found that summons bad been issued both in the ordinary way as well as by registered post and service had been effected by registered post as the endorsement on the envelope clearly indicated that it had been 'refused'. it was further observed by mr. m.l.mehta the the tenancy was joint and an eviction order had been passed against the respondents and it was not necessary to have specifically mentioned the name of respondent no. 2 in the order o( 7th september. 1983. consequently all three applications were dismissed with costs. (11) mr. kishan kumar aggarwal then filed a petition under article 227 of the constitution of india in this court challenging the above mentioned order of 27th february 1985. this is the present c.m. (m) no. 78 of 1985 on 26th march, 1985, this court directed that notice to show-cause why the petition be not admitted be issued for 17th april, 1985 notice for the same date was also directed to issue in the stay application, being c.m. 413/85 and an interim order was made saying the eviction of the petitioner, mr. krishan kumar aggarwal in the meanwhile. (12) mr. krishan kumar aggarwal and mr. yogesh kumar had also challenged the order of the additional rent controller, mr. a.k. (hug dated 30th january, 1985 evicting them under section 14(1)(d) of the act on 28th september, 1985, the rein. control tribunal confirmed the above mentioned order of mr. a.k. garg and dismissed the appeals of the two brothers, being rca 197/85 and rca 231/85 (13) thereafter, on 8th november, 1985, mr. krishan kumar aggarwal alone filed a second appeal against the said order of the rent control tribunal dated 28th september, 1985. on 14th november, 1985, when the said second appeal being sao no. 374 of 1985 was listed for preliminary hearing, the advocate sought for an adjournment. consequently, the matter was adjourned to 20th november, 1985. (14) in view of the said eviction order under section 14(1)(d) of the act, the landlord took possession of the premises on 1.4th november, 1985. on 20th november, 1985, sao 374 of 1985 was admitted.and notice was issued in the stay application for 20th november, 1985. (15) thereafter, oil 4th march, 1986, when counsel appeared for the respondent the court recorded that the landlord had already taken possession of the premises in dispute. consequently, he was directed to maintain the status quo and not induct any one else into the premises. (16) on 9th march, 1987. mr. kailash vasdev appearing for the appellant, mr. krishan kumar aggarwal sought time to seek instructions whether to pursue the appeal and/or the civil miscellaneous (main) in view of the fact that possession had already been taken by the respondent/landlord on 14th november, 1985, in pursuance of the eviction order under section 14(1)(d) of the act. (17) to-day mr. kailash vasdev says that the petitioner's only ground for not accepting the order dated 7th september, 1983 passed under section 14(1)(e) of the act is that he was not served by ordinary process. on a perusal of the record and even otherwise there does not appear to be any dispute that the petitioner was, in fact, served by registered post as the endorsement with regard to refusal has not been seriously challenged. it is, thereforee, clear that service was effected on mr. krishan kumar aggarwal, in view of order 5, rule 19a(2),cpc. in this view of the matter, the challenge to the order passed by the additional rent controller, mr. m.l. mehta dated 27th february, 1985, is without merit and consequently the order dated 7th september. 1983 evicting the tenant is valid. civil misc. (main) 78/85 is dismissed, but i make no order as to costs. (18) since the order of eviction passed under section 14(1)(c) of the act is held to be valid and the petitioner has already been dispossessed in consequence of the order passed under section 14(1)(d) of the act, sao 374 of 1985 has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. there will be. bo order as to costs.