This was perhaps necessitated because there were some amendments in the Government Rules on the subject.
The defendant appellant at this time was numberhere in the picture and numbernotice had yet been served on him.
Ultimately the Rent Controller by his order dated 27th July, 1977 rejected the application of the defendant for leave to appear and defend the suit and passed an order evicting the defendant from the premises.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained special leave.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 6 4 1978 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Revision No.
The defendant also raised some other companytentions.
The revision petition was heard by Justice Prakash Narain of the Delhi High Court who by his order dated 6th April, 1978 dismissed the revision petition with companyts.
The Rent Controller however left it open to the defendant to file his objection by a fresh application if he wanted to defend the suit.
Hence this appeal.
On the 4th June, 1976 the plaintiff again sought to amend her petition by deleting the cause of action mentioned under section 14 A l of the Act, that is to say requirement of the plaintiff because her husband had been directed to vacate the Government quarter.
On the 13th August, 1976 the defendant appeared before the Rent Controller and filed an application under section 25B sub sections 4 and 5 requesting the Rent Controller to give the defendant permission to defend the suit, on the ground that as the land lady was number a Government servant she was number entitled to maintain the eviction petition under section 14A 1 of the Act.
The plaintiff thereafter again filed another application on 27 1 1977 praying for amendment of her eviction application by re inserting the cause of action companytained in section 14 1 e of the Act and sought to claim eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement.
This application was companytested by the defendant but was allowed by the Rent Controller by his order dated 19 2 1977.
On the next date, that is on 3rd June, 1976 the plaintiff filed an application with drawing the cause of action mentioned by her regarding bonafide necessity and repairs as companytemplated by sections 14 1 e and 14 1 f of the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Madan Mohan, V.J. Francis and D.K. Garg for the, Appellant.
Thereafter numberice was issued to the defendant.
For the purpose of brevity and to avoid companyfusion the appellant shall hereafter be referred to as the defendant and the respondent as the Plaintiff.
The defendant accordingly filed an application on the 9th March, 1977 for permission to defend the suit on the ground that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff was uncalled for and illegal and companyld number be allowed.
822/77.
P.H. Parekh, C.B. Singh, M. Mudgal and B.L. Verma for the Respondent, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of The Delhi High Court dated the 6th April, 1978 dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant against an order of the Rent Controller.
On 6 10 1976 the husband of the plaintiff filed an application for being impleaded as a party, but this application was rejected on 22 11 1976.
Being aggrieved by this order the defendant went up in revision to the Delhi High Court as numberappeal or second appeal against the order passed by the Rent Controller was maintainable under sub section 8 of section 25B of the Act.
1291 of 1970.
The Rent Controller accordingly allowed the plaintiff to withdraw the two causes of action mentioned in the application.
IV H/46, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on 1 7 1967.
The defendant appellant was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff in Quarter No.
A prayer was also made by the plaintiff that even otherwise the premises were required for a bonafide necessity of the land lady and also as the premises had become unfit for human habitation the plaintiff required the same for carrying out repairs which companyld number be done unless the premises were vacated.
On 2nd June, 1976 the plaintiff filed an application under sections 14A 1 14 1 e and 14 j l of the Delhi Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for eviction of the tenant firstly on the ground that as the husband of the plaintiff was required by the Government to vacate the Government quarter or pay the penal rent the husband of the plaintiff had to shift to the house of his wife which was in the tenancy of the defendant.
