M/S.John Implex (Pvt) Ltd. & Anr vs Athul Kapur & Ors

3. The relationship between the parties hereto was landlord and tenant. Respondents-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises. A prayer for recovery of arrears of rent was also made. The said suit was filed in the Original Side of the Delhi High Court. Appellant, indisputably, appeared before the Delhi High Court. Evidences had been adduced in the matter. The suit was listed for final hearing on 23.10.2003. The said suit, however, consequent upon issuance of a notification enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts, was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi. On 13.2.2004, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi passed the following order :

5. Notice of motion on the said application was issued for service on the defendant. The said notice was undisputedly served upon the appellants. 3 They, however, contend that they were not conversant with the Hindi language and, thus, were not aware of the contents thereof. The said interlocutory application came up before the Court on 15.7.2004 on which date, the court passed the following order :

The said suit was, therefore, taken up for ex parte hearing and upon consideration of the materials brought on record by the plaintiff-respondent, the suit was decreed. The appellants filed an application for setting aside the said ex perte decree which by reason of an order dated 14.1.2005 was dismissed, opining :

The parties adduced evidences in support of their respective case. The matter was posted for final argument. It is, at this stage, the suit was transferred. The fact that the suits had been transferred from the Original Side of the Delhi High Court to the Court of Additional District Judge was known to all the litigants. The appellants, indisputably, had not made any endeavour to find out the date on which the suit was likely to be taken up for hearing.

13. The suit was transferred in the year 2004. It appears that even before the Delhi High Court, an application filed under Order IX Rule 9 was dismissed with costs. An appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed. The High Court by order dated 27.5.2003 directed the appellant to pay arrears of `Use and Occupation' charges at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per month. The said order was not complied with. The appellants furthermore 9 did not appear in the suit with effect from 23.4.2002. Respondents filed an application praying for a direction upon the appellants to deposit the `Use and Occupation' charges and on their failure to comply therewith to strike off the defence. An application was also filed by the respondent to direct the appellants to make payment of rent. Copies of the said applications were served upon the appellants. But despite the same, the appellants did not appear before the Court.

16. Furthermore, it appears that the appellant had taken an incorrect stand in support of their case that the Managing Director of the appellant was ill at 12 the relevant time. No such plea had been taken before the learned Trial Judge.

17. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed accordingly with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.10,000/-.

July 31 , 2009.