AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Sodhi, J.—This petition seeks to challenge the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 01.3.2002 whereby the learned Judge, has dismissed an application u/s 25 of the DRC Act disposing of the objections filed by the petitioner herein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not made a party to the eviction petition and, Therefore, this petition should be decided in accordance with CM(M) 155/2002 (page 1 of 2) Section 37 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In other words, evidence should have been allowed to be led and the procedure adopted for disposal in accordance with Section 37 of the DRC Act.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the order under challenge, the objection of the petitioner that he was not made a party to the eviction petition does not need any evidence since it is borne out from the records that on 17.2.1999 his application for being imp leaded as legal representative of the deceased was allowed and the petitioners were made party to the eviction petition. His objection in the execution that he was not made a party in the eviction petition is, factually incorrect as has been held by the Additional Rent Controller, this factual part does not need any evidence it is order dated 17.2.1999 which is the subject matter.
In this view of the matter, the order under challenge is upheld and objection is dismissed. CM(M) 155/2002 is dispose of accordingly.