Skip to content


R.K. Trikha Vs. Kishan Chand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Appeal No. 519 of 1982
Judge
Reported in23(1983)DLT268
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 7, Rule 11
AppellantR.K. Trikha
RespondentKishan Chand
Advocates: A.P. Ahluwalia and; A.L. Patney, Advs
Cases ReferredIn Edwin Brave v. Hari Chand
Excerpt:
it was ruled that under order 7 rule 11 of the civil procedure code, 1908, if the plaint does not disclose any cause of action then the same was liable to be rejected - however, the rejection of the eviction petition, would not preclude the respondent-landlord from presenting a fresh application under section 14(1)(e) of the delhi rent control act, 1958, as provided under order 7 rule 13 of the code - .....has filed this revision under section 25-b(8) of the act. his main contention is that the eviction application does not disclose any cause of action. he submits that all the ingredients mentioned in section 14(l)(e) of the act have not been pleaded by the respondent-landlord. the petitioner submits that there is no allegation that the suit premises were let for residential purposes. (2) i have gone through the eviction application. i do not find any such allegation. the learned counsel for the respondent has conceded that there is no such plea in the eviction application. in the absence of the ingredients of section 14(l)(e) of the act it would mean that the eviction petition does not disclose any cause of action. under order 7 rule i i of the code of civil procedure if the.....
Judgment:

Sultan Siagh, J.

(1) The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that he bona fide required the suit premises for himself and for members of his family, that he was the owner of the premises and that he had no other alternative accommodation for his residence. On these allegations he filed the eviction petition. Notice of the same was issued to the petitioner. An application for leave to defend was filed on his behalf. The Additional Controller by the impugned order dated 15-2-82 dismissed the application for leave to contest and passed an order of eviction. The petitioner has filed this revision under Section 25-B(8) of the Act. His main contention is that the eviction application does not disclose any cause of action. He submits that all the ingredients mentioned in Section 14(l)(e) of the Act have not been pleaded by the respondent-landlord. The petitioner submits that there is no allegation that the suit premises were let for residential purposes.

(2) I have gone through the eviction application. I do not find any such allegation. The learned counsel for the respondent has Conceded that there is no such plea in the eviction application. In the absence of the ingredients of Section 14(l)(e) of the Act it would mean that the eviction petition does not disclose any cause of action. Under Order 7 Rule I I of the Code of Civil Procedure if the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, the same is liable to be rejected. In Edwin Brave v. Hari Chand, : 21(1982)DLT209 it was held that where all the essential ingredients of Section 14(l)(e) of the Act a i e not pleaded, the eviction application was liable to be rejected.

(3) I, thereforee, accept the revision petition and set aside the order of eviction passed by the Additional Controller. The eviction application docs not disclose any cause of action and is thereforee, rejected. The rejection of the eviction petition however, shall not perclude the respondent-landlord fiom presenting a fresh eviction application under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act as provided under Order 7 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //