Date,Proceeding
06/01/2012,The suit was filed.
14/08/2012,Written statement was filed.
26/09/2012,Issues were framed.
18/01/2013,"Affidavit of examination-in-chief was filed and the
Petitioner sought time for cross-examination.
25/03/2013,The petitioner sought time for cross-examination.
17/04/2013,"An application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed by the
Petitioner.
22/07/2013,"Again an application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed
the Petitioner.
13/11/2013,"Application under Section 13(6) of “the Act†was
filed.
10/03/2014,"The application under Section 13(6) of “the Actâ€
and other applications were decided. The Petitioner
was directed to deposit the amount of maintenance and
tax and to keep on depositing the same.
22/08/2014,"The Petitioner having deposited partial amount of
service tax filed an application under Section 151 CPC
praying thereby that the Respondent be not allowed to
withdraw the said amount. The learned trial Court
considering its order dated 10/03/2014 rejected the said
application.
14/10/2014,"When the case was fixed for evidence the Petitioner
filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12-14 CPC.
26/02/2015,"When the case was fixed for evidence, the Petitioner
again filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
17/06/2015,"When the case was fixed for evidence the Petitioner
again filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
09/09/2015,"When the case was fixed for evidence, the Petitioner
again sought time for cross-examination with a direction
to complete the cross-examination on the next date of
hearing.
05/10/2015,"When the case was fixed for evidence, the Petitioner
filed an application under Section/Rule 110 Civil Cour
Rules.
30/11/2015,"When the case was fixed for evidence, the Petitioner
filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC.
09/02/2016,"When the case was fixed for evidence, the Petitioner
filed an application for adjournment the same was
allowed with a direction to remain present at 11 a.m. on
the next date of hearing for cross-examination.
08/03/2016,"The case was again adjourned for arguments on the
application.
26/07/2017,"When the case was fixed for evidence, the same was
again adjourned for arguments on the application.
06/10/2017,"The Respondent filed an application under Section
13(6) of “the Actâ€.
10/03/2018,"An application under Section 13(6) of “the Actâ€
was allowed and the case was fixed for evidence on
22/06/2018.
Court is directed to decide the civil suit within two months by holding hearing of the matter every week. So far as the judgment relief by the learned in,
the case of Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it does not relate to any issue in respect of striking off defence on the ground of non-payment of",
rent. It is certainly distinguishable on facts. The issue in the aforesaid case reads as under:-,
“Whether property tax recoverable from the tenant Under Section 67(3) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (for short 'NDMC Act') as",
arrears of rent by the landlord/owner can be considered to be forming part of the rent for the purpose of seeking eviction or ejectment of such tenant,
who defaults in payment of such recoverable tax as rent and when the rent including recoverable tax in respect of the tenanted premises exceeds,
Rs.3500/- per month, thereby losing protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'Rent Act').â€",
13- Whereas in the present case, the issue is altogether different and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is distinguishable on",
facts. This Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any jurisdiction error nor it is a perverse order.,
14- The apex court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 in paragraph 49 held as under:-,
49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of",
the Constitution may be formulated:,
(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under,
these two Articles is also different.,
(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is",
substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed,
above.,
(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the",
orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal",
subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of",
this power by the High Court.,
(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this,
regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles,
in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.,
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can",
interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, 'within the bounds of their authority'.",
(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to,
exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.,
(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent",
perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles,
of natural justice have been flouted.,
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than,
the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.",
(i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of,
the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261",
and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful.,
(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code",
(Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered",
that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227.,
(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.",
(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is",
to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.,
(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of",
justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that,
the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the,
functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court.,
(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed,
for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual,
grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above.",
(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.""",
15- In light of the aforesaid judgment as no patent illegality has been committed by the trial court and the order passed by the trial court does not,
suffer from any jurisdictional error, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 10/03/2018. The trial Court is directed to",
decide the suit within two months, by holding hearing of the matter every week.",
No order as to costs.,
Certified copy as per rules.,
