Pardeep Kumar vs Deepa Singha And Another

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 04.09.2023, in terms whereof an application filed by the present petitioner under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected by the learned Rent Controller.

Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and having perused the order impugned as well as other documents appended with the petition, this Court does not finds any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller.

In exercise of its powers conferred under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court interferes with the orders in case the learned Court below has either exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it with material irregularity.

A perusal of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller demonstrates that in the present case, none of the these three ingredients are met so as to interfere with the order so passed by the learned Rent Controller. It is not the case of the petitioner that learned Rent Controller has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it because it is the application of the petitioner which stood adjudicated upon by the learned Rent Controller. Similarly, it cannot be the ground of the petitioner that the learned Rent Controller did not exercise jurisdiction vested in it because the application filed by the petitioner stood adjudicated upon by the learned Rent Controller. As far as the exercise of jurisdiction vested in it with material irregularity is concerned, here is a case where the respondent has filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in the year 2013 and till date the same is hanging fire. Record demonstrates that the petitioner filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was dismissed by learned Rent Controller. He then filed certain applications to bring on record certain documents which were also dismissed in the year 2017 and later on again apparently with the intent to delay the proceedings, this application was filed under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller.

The Court concurs with the findings returned by learned Rent Controller that the application has been filed just to delay the proceedings because no cogent explanation has come forth as to why what was now being intended to be done by way of filing the application under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was not done by the petitioner earlier.

Accordingly, in view of above reasoning, as the Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.