Full Judgment Text
NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7259-7260 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1388-1389 of 2008)
Shiv Kumar …Appellant
Versus
Darshan Kumar …
Respondent
O R D E R
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
1. Delay of 166 days in filing these appeals is condoned
as we find that the statements made in the application for
condonation of delay constitute sufficient cause for
condoning the delay in filing the same.
2. Leave granted.
1
3. These appeals are directed against a judgment and
th
order dated 8 of January, 2007 passed by the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Misc. Nos.142-143 of 2007
which arose out of Civil Misc. Main No. 429 of 2005,
whereby the High Court had rejected the application for
restoration filed by the landlord/appellant and thereby
denying to restore the Civil Misc. Main No. 429 of 2005.
4. The appellant, being the landlord of Shop No. WZ-272,
Jail Road, Nangal Raya, New Delhi – 46 (hereinafter referred
to as “the disputed property”) filed an eviction petition before
the Rent Controller, New Delhi, which was decided in favour
of the appellant and the Rent Controller, by the said order,
passed an order of eviction against the respondent.
2
5. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached the
Additional Rent Control Tribunal, New Delhi and by an order
th
dated 20 of September, 2004, the Additional Rent Control
Tribunal had set aside the order of the Rent Controller and
rejected the eviction petition filed by the appellant. Against
this order of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, the
appellant had approached the High Court of Delhi by way of
a Civil Misc. Main Petition No. 429 of 2005 and the High
Court entertained the said petition and issued notice to the
respondent. The aforesaid petition, however, was dismissed
th
in default on 4 of May, 2006. Accordingly, an application
for restoration was filed by the appellant for the purpose of
recalling the aforesaid order of dismissal for default. In the
application for restoration, it was alleged that the appellant
had fallen seriously ill and was admitted to Sir Ganga Ram
Hospital, whereby he was advised by the Doctors to take
complete bed rest. By the impugned order, the application
for restoration was rejected and feeling aggrieved, the
appellant has come up before this Court by way of Special
3
Leave Petitions, which on grant of leave, were heard in
presence of the learned counsel for the parties.
4
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the materials on record including the
statements made in the application for restoration, we are
satisfied that the application for restoration should be
allowed subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent
in the High Court as costs. Accordingly, the impugned order
is set aside and the original Civil Misc. Petition No.429 of
2005 is restored to its original file subject to payment or
deposit of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondent in the
High Court within a period of one month from this date.
However, it was brought to our notice by the learned counsel
for the tenant/respondent that subsequent to the rejection
of the application for restoration, two other petitions for
restoration were also rejected by the High Court. Therefore,
the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the
question of restoration of the Civil Misc. No. 429 of 2005 at
this stage cannot arise as the appellant had failed to
challenge the subsequent two orders as noted hereinabove.
5
7. Since the appellant has already challenged the first
order of rejection of the restoration application, which is now
before us and in the event this application for restoration is
allowed and the Civil Misc. No. 429 of 2005 is restored to its
original file, it is needless to say that the subsequent
restoration applications, which were rejected, are also
deemed to have been allowed.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the
original Civil Misc. No. 429 of 2005 is restored to its original
file. The High Court is requested to dispose of the case at an
early date preferably within two months from the date of
supply of a copy of this order to it. However, we make it
clear that in the event, the appellant fails to deposit or pay
the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent as
costs in the High Court within one month from this date, the
application for restoration shall stand rejected and these
appeals shall stand dismissed and the order of the High
Court shall stand affirmed.
6
9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The
appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above.
There will be no order of costs.
…..………..……..……J.
[TARUN CHATTERJEE]
New Delhi; .….….…….……
………J.
December 12, 2008. [V.S. SIRPURKAR]
7