Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV.No.546/2011 & C.M.Nos.23526-23527/2011,
17639-17640/2013
th
% 08 August, 2014
M/S HIM TRADERS PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.N.K.Aggarwal, Advocates.
versus
SH. S.K. GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.C.P.Vig, Advocate.
Ms.Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for
applicant/sub-tenant.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) challenges the impugned
order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 31.3.2011 which has dismissed
the leave to defend application filed by the defendant/petitioner herein,
inasmuch as the leave to defend application was filed beyond the period of
15 days.
RC.Rev. No.546/2011 Page 1 of 5
2. The trial court has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Prakash H.Jain Vs. Ms. Marie Fernandes, AIR 2003 SC 4591 ,
however, now there is in fact a direct judgment of the Supreme Court under
the Delhi Rent Control Act in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh
(dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 which holds that there cannot be delay
of even one day beyond the period of 15 days for filing of the leave to
defend application.
3. In the present case, as per the trial court record, the petitioner was
served on 08.10.2010 by the process server. Petitioner is a company and it
was served through one Mr.R.K.Gupta who is the Director and the
authorized signatory of the petitioner/company. I note that as per the Order
29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), service on a company can
be effected through a principal officer and a Director of a company is surely
a principal officer.
4 (i) As the service was effected on the petitioner/defendant on 08.10.2010
but the leave to defend application was filed only on 25.10.2010, whereas it
had to be filed on or before 23.10.2010, the ratio of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra) is squarely applicable.
RC.Rev. No.546/2011 Page 2 of 5
(ii) A reference to the leave to defend application shows that the
petitioner/defendant stated that it was served only on 10.10.2010, however,
this was only a self-serving averment without any basis because the trial
court record shows that service was in fact duly effected on the petitioner
through the process server on 08.10.2010.
5. Counsel for the petitioner very vehemently sought to argue that
service should be taken as 10.10.2010 because there was a second service by
registered post on 10.10.2010, however, it is noted that this fact is not
pleaded, inasmuch as the pleading/leave to defend application of the
petitioner talks only of one service on 10.10.2010, and it is to be noted that it
is also not stated in the leave to defend application that a second service is
effected on 10.10.2010 by registered post. Further, there is nothing which is
filed before this Court in this petition which is pending since the year 2011
that the petitioner was served through registered post for the second time on
10.10.2010.
6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is
therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
C.M.No.17639/2013
RC.Rev. No.546/2011 Page 3 of 5
1. This application was filed by one M/s New Airways Travels (Delhi)
Pvt. Ltd. claiming that it is a legal sub-tenant, and therefore eviction order
cannot be passed. However, the application does not lie as it is noted that as
per Sections 17 & 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, a sub-tenant only if he
is a legal sub-tenant will step into the shoes of the tenant, and which aspect
is not in issue and cannot be in issue in a bonafie necessity petition. It is
only after the tenancy of the petitioner/tenant is terminated pursuant to the
eviction order, only thereafter and then if a sub-tenant is a legal sub-tenant,
then such legal sub-tenant will step into the shoes of the tenant, and on
which basis the so-called legal sub-tenant will have an independent title. An
alleged legal sub-tenant is entitled to file objections in the execution petition
in terms of Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, however, a bonafide
necessity petition cannot be converted into a petition for deciding the
validity or otherwise of the sub-tenancy.
2. In view of the above, the application is dismissed with liberty to the
applicant, of course in accordance with law, to file objections under Section
25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and that this Court states nothing with
RC.Rev. No.546/2011 Page 4 of 5
respect to any merits of the alleged stand of the alleged sub-tenant/applicant,
New Airways Travels (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
AUGUST 08, 2014
KA
RC.Rev. No.546/2011 Page 5 of 5
+ RC.REV.No.546/2011 & C.M.Nos.23526-23527/2011,
17639-17640/2013
th
% 08 August, 2014
M/S HIM TRADERS PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.N.K.Aggarwal, Advocates.
versus
SH. S.K. GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.C.P.Vig, Advocate.
Ms.Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for
applicant/sub-tenant.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) challenges the impugned
order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 31.3.2011 which has dismissed
the leave to defend application filed by the defendant/petitioner herein,
inasmuch as the leave to defend application was filed beyond the period of
15 days.
RC.Rev. No.546/2011 Page 1 of 5
2. The trial court has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Prakash H.Jain Vs. Ms. Marie Fernandes, AIR 2003 SC 4591 ,
however, now there is in fact a direct judgment of the Supreme Court under
the Delhi Rent Control Act in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh
(dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 which holds that there cannot be delay
of even one day beyond the period of 15 days for filing of the leave to
defend application.
3. In the present case, as per the trial court record, the petitioner was
served on 08.10.2010 by the process server. Petitioner is a company and it
was served through one Mr.R.K.Gupta who is the Director and the
authorized signatory of the petitioner/company. I note that as per the Order
29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), service on a company can
be effected through a principal officer and a Director of a company is surely
a principal officer.
4 (i) As the service was effected on the petitioner/defendant on 08.10.2010
but the leave to defend application was filed only on 25.10.2010, whereas it
had to be filed on or before 23.10.2010, the ratio of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra) is squarely applicable.
RC.Rev. No.546/2011 Page 2 of 5
(ii) A reference to the leave to defend application shows that the
petitioner/defendant stated that it was served only on 10.10.2010, however,
this was only a self-serving averment without any basis because the trial
court record shows that service was in fact duly effected on the petitioner
through the process server on 08.10.2010.
5. Counsel for the petitioner very vehemently sought to argue that
service should be taken as 10.10.2010 because there was a second service by
registered post on 10.10.2010, however, it is noted that this fact is not
pleaded, inasmuch as the pleading/leave to defend application of the
petitioner talks only of one service on 10.10.2010, and it is to be noted that it
is also not stated in the leave to defend application that a second service is
effected on 10.10.2010 by registered post. Further, there is nothing which is
filed before this Court in this petition which is pending since the year 2011
that the petitioner was served through registered post for the second time on
10.10.2010.
6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is
therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
C.M.No.17639/2013
RC.Rev. No.546/2011 Page 3 of 5
1. This application was filed by one M/s New Airways Travels (Delhi)
Pvt. Ltd. claiming that it is a legal sub-tenant, and therefore eviction order
cannot be passed. However, the application does not lie as it is noted that as
per Sections 17 & 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, a sub-tenant only if he
is a legal sub-tenant will step into the shoes of the tenant, and which aspect
is not in issue and cannot be in issue in a bonafie necessity petition. It is
only after the tenancy of the petitioner/tenant is terminated pursuant to the
eviction order, only thereafter and then if a sub-tenant is a legal sub-tenant,
then such legal sub-tenant will step into the shoes of the tenant, and on
which basis the so-called legal sub-tenant will have an independent title. An
alleged legal sub-tenant is entitled to file objections in the execution petition
in terms of Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, however, a bonafide
necessity petition cannot be converted into a petition for deciding the
validity or otherwise of the sub-tenancy.
2. In view of the above, the application is dismissed with liberty to the
applicant, of course in accordance with law, to file objections under Section
25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and that this Court states nothing with
RC.Rev. No.546/2011 Page 4 of 5
respect to any merits of the alleged stand of the alleged sub-tenant/applicant,
New Airways Travels (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
AUGUST 08, 2014
KA
RC.Rev. No.546/2011 Page 5 of 5