- (1.)This is a tenant's revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller dated 28th November, 1977.
(2.)Shrimati Rama Devi, the landlady, made an application to the Controller for the eviction of her tenant Avinash Chander on the ground of bonafide requirement specified in clause (3) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). The application was tried in a summary fashion under the procedure specified in Section 25B of Chapter III A of the Act. As required by Sub-section (2) of Section 25B the Controller issued summons in the form specified in the third Schedule. The tenant was served on 18th of October 1977. He did not obtain leave of the Controller to contest the application for eviction within 15 days of the service of the summons on him. On 28th November, 1977, the tenant appeared through his counsel before the Controller as that was the date fixed in the case. Finding that the tenant had not applied for leave to contest the application of eviction the Controller passed an order of eviction against the tenant.
(3.)On 16th January, 1978 the tenant moved an application for review under Section 25B(9) of the Act. In this application he did not state any reason why he did not ask for leave to contest the eviction application. What he said was that the landlady's application was defective because the notice served by her was illegal, that she had not alleged that she had no other suitable accommodation with her and in any case the Court ought to have followed in the decision of D.K. Kapur, J. in Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed v. Smt. Masha Allah Begum, 1977 2 RCJ 620. On these grounds the tenant sought to review of the order of eviction.