AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Indermeet Kaur, J.
CM No. 13354/2011 (for exemption) in CM(M) No. 835/2011
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No.835/2011 & CM No. 13353/2011 (for stay)
Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 19.4.2011 whereby the application filed by the tenant u/s 151 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for taking into account certain subsequent events which had arisen after the filing of the eviction petition had been dismissed. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed u/s 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the DRCA"). The contention of the tenant in his application before the trial Court was that property Nos. 10, 12 and 14 of Doctor''s Lane, Delhi had been sealed by the Monitoring Committee of the Delhi High Court on 27.3.2008 but thereafter they had been de-sealed on 5.2.2010. This subsequent event is necessary to be brought to light for the effective adjudication of the petition. Trial Court had noted that the procedure prescribed to deal with the petition u/s 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act does not permit filing of such like application as it would defeat the very purpose for which this provision has been enacted. The impugned order suffers from no infirmity. Apex Court in the case of Corona Ltd. v. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons, VIII (2007) SLT 629, had considered the impact of subsequent events on an eviction decree u/s 14(1)(e) of the DRCA; it had inter alia noted as follows:
In our judgment, the law is fairly settled. The basic rule is that the rights of the parties should be determined on the basis of the date of institution of the suit. Thus, if the plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of filing of the suit, ordinarily, lie will not be allowed to take advantage of the cause of action arising subsequent to the filing of the suit. Conversely, no relief will normally be denied to the plaintiff by reason of any subsequent event if at the date of the institution of the suit, he has a substantive right to claim such relief.
This position has been reiterated by subsequent judgments of Benches of this Court reported in 155 (2008) DLT 681, Dharam Pal Gupta & Ors. v. Anand Prakash as also in the judgment reported in 159 (2009) DLT 101, Ruparel & Company v. S. Avtar Singh Puri (Deed.) through L.Rs. & Ors. In this view of the matter the impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity.
Dismissed.