Skip to content


Pritam Singh Vs. Bhajan Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Appeal No. 574 of 1980
Judge
Reported in18(1980)DLT396; 1980(1)DRJ118; 1980RLR705
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 25B
AppellantPritam Singh
RespondentBhajan Lal
Advocates: D.S. Marwah and; K.C. Mittal, Advs
Cases ReferredIn Gurditta Mal v. Bal Swarup
Excerpt:
a. delhi rent control act, 1958--section 25b--petition under section 25b for the revision of order passed by additional rent controller application for leave to contest by tenant was dismissed by the rent controller on the ground that there was no provision for condoning the delay in filing the said application. held--the controller and the tribunal have inherent powers to exercise their discretion in entertaining the application for leave to contest if sufficient cause is disclosed in a particular case for not filing the application within 15 days of the service of the notice. - .....and, thereforee, section 5 of the limitation act is not applicable. it may be so but the rent controller has inherent jurisdiction. in gurditta mal v. bal swarup, : air1980delhi216 it has been held : 'inexercise of the inherent jurisdiction the controller can set aside the order of eviction and rehear and redecide the case if the tenant can show that he was prevented from applying for leave for a sufficient cause.'(3) the petitioner in his application under section 151 of the code read with section 5 of the limitation act states that he can put his signatures in urdu, he does not know english or hindi. he has also mentioned facts which have not been taken into consideration by the controller. held the controller and the tribunal have inherent powers to exercise their discretion.....
Judgment:

Sultan Singh, J.

(1) HEARD. Records examined.

(2) This is a revision petition under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). It appears that the petitioner was served on 18.12.1979 and he filed an application for leave to contest on 18/1/1980, accompanied by another application under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein he gave the reasons for not filing the application for leave to contest prior to 18/1/1980. The Additional Controller dismissed the application for leave to contest on the ground that there was no provision for condoning the delay in filing the said application. This observation of the Additional Controller does not appear to be correct. Mr. Mittal states that the Limitation Act is not applicable to Rent Control proceedings and, thereforee, section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. It may be so but the Rent Controller has inherent jurisdiction. In Gurditta Mal v. Bal Swarup, : AIR1980Delhi216 it has been held :

'INexercise of the inherent jurisdiction the Controller can set aside the order of eviction and rehear and redecide the case if the tenant can show that he was prevented from applying for leave for a sufficient cause.'

(3) The petitioner in his application under section 151 of the Code read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act states that he can put his signatures in Urdu, he does not know English or Hindi. He has also mentioned facts which have not been taken into consideration by the Controller. Held the controller and the Tribunal have inherent powers to exercise their discretion in entertaining the application for leave to contest if sufficient cause is disclosed in a particular case for not filing the application within 15 days of service. In the facts and circumstances of the case. whether leave to defend should be granted is a matter for the Rent Controller to decide after taking into consideration the various circumstances pleaded in the application. If the Controller finds that there was sufficient cause for not filing the application for leave to defend prior to 18/1/1980 he will proceed to consider the application for leave to contest the eviction application.

(4) In these circumstances the order of Additional Controller dismissing the applications of the tenant is set aside and both the applications are remanded to the Additional Controller for decision in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before Shri P.K. Dham, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on 29/9/1980 for further directions. Parties are left to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //