RC.REV./169/2017 of PREMIER BOOK CO / SULTAN CHAND & SONS THR ITS PARTNERS USHA AGGARWAL Vs PRATAP CHAND VAISH

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+RC.REV. 169/2017

PREMIER BOOK CO / SULTAN CHAND & SONS THR ITSPARTNERS USHA AGGARWAL..... Petitioner

PARTNERS USHA AGGARWAL..... PetitionerThroughMs.Surabhi Gupta, AdvocateversusPRATAP CHAND VAISH..... RespondentThrough

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R R%12.04.2017

CM No.13706 /2017(exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

RC.REV.169/2017

1.By the present petition filed under section 25-B of the Delhi RentControl Act, 1958 the petitioner seeks to impugn the eviction order dated1.12.2016 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC).

2.A perusal of the order would show that the petitioner was served withsummons on 29.09.2016. However, no leave to defend application was filed.Hence, in terms of section 25-B of the DRC Act the ARC passed an evictionorder.

3.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. She relies on an orderdated 15.09.2016 passed in Civil Suit where an order of status quo waspassed. perusal of the order would show that no background details havebeen given about the said order neither copy of the plaint has been filed.Co-relation of the civil proceedings with the present Rent proceedings is not

sought to be explained. The only argument is that in the said civilproceedings the petitioner was also party and the civil court has passed anorder regarding status quo of possession.

4.In my opinion, merely because there is some civil dispute between theparties cannot be ground to obstruct disposal of the eviction petition.

5.The Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh,(2010) 2 SCC 15 held as follows:-

“13. Next comes the very important provision in Section 25Bof the Rent Act, i.e., Sub-section (4) of the same. It clearlyprovides that tenant on whom the summons is duly served inthe form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest theprayer for eviction from the premises unless he files anaffidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest theapplication for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller,as hereinafter provided, and in default of his appearance inpursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, thestatement made by the landlord in the application for evictionshall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicantshall be entitled to an order for eviction on the groundaforesaid.

15. At this stage, we may also note that in Sub-section (4) ofSection 25B of the Rent Act read with Third Schedule, it hasbeen made clear by the Legislature that if the summons of theproceeding is received by the tenant, he has to appear and askfor leave to contest the eviction proceeding within 15 daysfrom the date of service of notice upon the tenant and if hefails to do so, automatically, an order of eviction in favour ofthe landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement shall bemade.”

6.In view of the above legal position there is no infirmity in the

impugned order. Present petition is without merits and is dismissed. Allpending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly

APRIL 12, 2017

JAYANT NATH, J