AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 373 wordsSultan Siagh, J.
(1) The respondent-landlord filed a petition u/s 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 u/s 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 CPC if the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, the same is liable to be rejected. In Edwin Brave Vs. Hari Chand, 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, Therefore, 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 Therefore, rejected. The rejection of the eviction petition however, shall not preclude the respondent-landlord from presenting a fresh eviction application u/s 14(l)(e) of the Act as provided under Order 7 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No order as to costs.