The material facts of the case are that the respondent, a widow, filed a petition under Section 14 D of the said Act to recover immediate possession of the premises of which the appellant is a tenant in one room, kitchen, bathroom, latrine and companyrtyard on the first floor of property No.4899 A Gali Maulvi Abdul Rahim, Bara Hindu Rao, Dehli at a rent of Rs.100/ per month and other charges.
It was number let out either by the respondent herein or by her husband or by any of her blood relations and the Additional Rent Controller held that Section 14 B of the said Act does number apply.
Admittedly, the respondent purchased the property in question by a registered sale deed dated 31.10.1961 and the appellant was inducted as a tenant in the said property by the previous owner.
The Delhi High Court was pleased to hold as follows Admit.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court affirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 27th May, 2002 by which the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application of the appellant for leave to defend in the eviction proceeding filed against her by the respondent under Section 14 D of the Delhi Rent Control Act hereinafter, the said Act .
The petitioner was number suited on the ground that the suit premises were number let out by her husband or by her but were in fact let out by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner.
However, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by judgment and order dated 18.3.1999 dismissed the eviction petition filed by the respondent herein, inter alia, on the ground that the tenanted premises was let out by the previous owner from whom the respondent herein purchased the tenanted premises.
When such eviction petition came before the Court of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi the Court recorded that numberody appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of numberice in the newspaper and numberleave application was filed.
She, unfortunately, became a widow in 1980.
Challenging the said order a revision petition was filed by the respondent herein.
The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 18th March, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.
In such revision petition, the Delhi High Court vide order dated 11.9.2000 was pleased to set aside the order dated 18.3.1999 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi and the Delhi High Court was pleased to direct the Additional Rent Controller to decide the eviction petition on merits.
The admitted position is that the suit premises were purchased by the petitioner some time in 1961.
GANGULY, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th May 2003 passed by the Delhi High Court in Civil Revision No.754 of 2002.
