Mangat Ram & Anr v. Tara Chand & Ors

ORDER o/o zB.tL.zOlL Matter has been called twice. None has appeared for the petitioner. Impugned order is the order dated 10.8.2011vide which the eviction petition of the landlord had been decree as no leave to defend had been filed by the tenant within the prescribed period of limitation as prescribed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Dethi Rent Control Act. Record shows that the summons had been served upon the tenant on2t.I0.20tti; leave to defend had been filed on 29.II.2010 which was beyond the prescribed period; there being no leave to defend the petition was decreed. Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. a/- In view of the judgment of Prithpal Sinqh Vs. Satpa| Sinqh (Dead) throuqh its leqaL heirs reported in (2010) 2 SCC 15 the impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity. I Dismissed. IV INDERMEET KAUR, J NOVEMBER 28,?OLI nandan )

-1 Ii $-A-32 XIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 4741201L & CM No.21'459-60120L1' MANGAT RAM & ANR ..... Petitioner Through: None. versus TARA CHAND & ORS .... Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR