Second Appeal No.24D of 1964. Case: Ram Partap Vs Indian Electric Works Limited. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | Second Appeal No.24D of 1964 |
| Counsel | D K Kapur, C M Lal |
| Judges | Mehar Singh, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 23, Rules 1; Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 37(2), 14(1) |
| Citation | 1965 (1) DLT 175 |
| Judgement Date | March 05, 1965 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Mehar Singh, J.
This second appeal from the order, dated November 2, 1963, of the Rent Control Tribunal arises out of an application under section 14(l)(b)ofthe Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59 of 1958), wherein the appellant, who is the landlord, sought eviction of the respondent from the premises in question on the ground that the respondent, as tenant, has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession 'of the whole of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the appellant, which application was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller under Order 23, rule 1(3), of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that a previous similar application by the appellant made on the same ground on May 26, 1961, was dismissed on a statement by the counsel for the appellant to that effect on January 29, 1962, after the respond hit had put in reply to that application, and that amounted to withdrawal of the previous application without obtaining permission of the Additional Rent Controller to file afresh application. This order of the Additional Rent Controller has been maintained by the Rent Control Tribunal.
A little more detail of the facts is necessary to appreciate the nature of the controversy between the parties. The respondent is a limited company. Its business was taken over by the Central Government under the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (Act 65 of 1951), and a Controller to manage its business was appointed under the statutory powers. The Controller then appointed Messrs Turner Hoar and Company Limited of Bombay to be selling agents for the respondent company. Messrs Turner Hoare and Company came in possession.of the premises in dispute some time before May 26, 1961. On this last mentioned date, the appellant made an application under section 14(1) (b) for eviction of the respondent on the ground of its having sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises to Messrs Turner Hoare and Company. A reply to that application was made by the respondent on October 14, 1961. In that reply the facts as detailed above were pointed out and it was stated that sometime in July, 1961, the agency with Messrs Turner Hoare and Company came to an end. Of course, that ground of eviction was denied. Upon that, while the case continued pending on January 29, 1962 the counsel for the appellant made a statement before the Additional Rent Controller that that application be consigned to the record. On that, the Additional Rent Controller proceeded to make an order that application be consigned to the record room according to the statement of the counsel for the appellant and the parties be left' to their own costs. There the matter of the first application came to an end.
On May 16, 1962, the appellant filed a second application for eviction of the respondent under section 14(l)(b) of Act 59 of 1958 on the allegation of the latter having sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises to Messrs Turner Hoare and Company. It is this second application which has been dismissed by both the authorities applying sub-rule (3) of rule I of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The first argument by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in terms sub-rule (3) of rule I of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to the facts of the present case. The reason given for this is that the first eviction application was...
To continue reading
Request your trial