Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) Matter has come up on application filed by the respondent under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of exparte interim order passed by this Court dated 31.01.2011.However, with consent of the parties, the matter has been finally heard at this stage.
(2.) As alleged in the writ petition, non petitioner-1 who has informed to this Court is senior citizen filed application Under section 9 of the Rent Control Act,2001 ("Act,2001") on the ground of subletting & personal & bona fide necessity before the Rent Tribunal on14.05.2007 impleading the petitioner &respondent-2 as defendants. Notice of the application came to be served admittedly upon both the respondents on 02.07.2007. However,non-petitioner-2 firm Ladu Ram Ramni was through proprietor Raj Kumar filed its reply to the eviction application on 04.07.2007 but so far as present petitioner is concerned, no reply was filed on his behalf on that day and exparte proceedings were initiated against him vide order dated 20.07.2007. However, this fact came to his notice as alleged by him on26.10.2009. It will be relevant to record that in his application copy of which has been placed on record as Ex.3 it was specifically averred by him in para-6 that the petitioner admits the reply filed by non-petitioner-2.However, he additionally wants to file his own affidavit and documents in support of his defence.
(3.) The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties rejected the application filed by the petitioner vide order impugned dated 10.11.2010 primarily on the premise that the application filed by the petitioner was not duly supported by affidavit as such the fact alleged by him in his application regarding exparte proceedings initiated by the Tribunal came to his notice on 26.10.2009 cannot be accepted at its face value and was convinced with the submissions made by the non-petitioner-1-landlord that the application has been filed only to delay the proceedings.;