Shiv Kumar Vs.
Darshan Kumar  INSC 2157 (12 December 2008)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7259-7260 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1388-1389 of 2008) Shiv Kumar ...Appellant Versus
Darshan Kumar ...
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
of 166 days in filing these appeals is condoned as we find that the statements
made in the application for condonation of delay constitute sufficient cause
for condoning the delay in filing the same.
appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 8th of January, 2007
passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Misc. Nos.142-143 of
2007 which arose out of Civil Misc. Main No. 429 of 2005, whereby the High Court
had rejected the application for restoration filed by the landlord/appellant
and thereby denying to restore the Civil Misc. Main No. 429 of 2005.
appellant, being the landlord of Shop No. WZ-272, Jail Road, Nangal Raya, New
Delhi - 46 (hereinafter referred to as "the disputed property") filed
an eviction petition before the Rent Controller, New Delhi, which was decided
in favour of the appellant and the Rent Controller, by the said order, passed
an order of eviction against the respondent.
aggrieved, the respondent approached the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, New
Delhi and by an order dated 20th of September, 2004, the Additional Rent
Control Tribunal had set aside the order of the Rent Controller and rejected
the eviction petition filed by the appellant. Against this order of the
Additional Rent Control Tribunal, the appellant had approached the High Court
of Delhi by way of a Civil Misc. Main Petition No. 429 of 2005 and the High
Court entertained the said petition and issued notice to the respondent. The
aforesaid petition, however, was dismissed in default on 4th of May, 2006.
Accordingly, an application for restoration was filed by the appellant for the
purpose of recalling the aforesaid order of dismissal for default. In the
application for restoration, it was alleged that the appellant had fallen
seriously ill and was admitted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, whereby he was
advised by the Doctors to take complete bed rest. By the impugned order, the
application for restoration was rejected and feeling aggrieved, the appellant
has come up before this Court by way of Special Leave Petitions, which on grant
of leave, were heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.
heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials
on record including the statements made in the application for restoration, we
are satisfied that the application for restoration should be allowed subject to
payment of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent in the High Court as costs. Accordingly,
the impugned order is set aside and the original Civil Misc. Petition No.429 of
2005 is restored to its original file subject to payment or deposit of
Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondent in the High Court within a period of one
month from this date.
However, it was
brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the tenant/respondent that
subsequent to the rejection of the application for restoration, two other
petitions for restoration were also rejected by the High Court. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the respondent contended that the question of restoration
of the Civil Misc. No. 429 of 2005 at this stage cannot arise as the appellant
had failed to challenge the subsequent two orders as noted hereinabove.
the appellant has already challenged the first order of rejection of the
restoration application, which is now before us and in the event this
application for restoration is allowed and the Civil Misc. No. 429 of 2005 is
restored to its original file, it is needless to say that the subsequent
restoration applications, which were rejected, are also deemed to have been
the impugned order is set aside and the original Civil Misc. No. 429 of 2005 is
restored to its original file. The High Court is requested to dispose of the
case at an early date preferably within two months from the date of supply of a
copy of this order to it. However, we make it clear that in the event, the
appellant fails to deposit or pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- to the
respondent as costs in the High Court within one month from this date, the
application for restoration shall stand rejected and these appeals shall stand
dismissed and the order of the High Court shall stand affirmed.
the impugned order is set aside. The appeals are allowed to the extent
There will be no
order of costs.
Pages: 1 2 3