JUDGMENT

DESAI, J.:—A dispute of a trivial nature between a landlord and now his transferees and the tenant is awaiting disposal for over 3 decades thanks to the literal and unimaginative approach to the provisions of a procedural statute which times without number has been described as one for advancing justice and not to make a mockery of it.

2. A bungalow with an attached cottage situated at No. 1. Hailey Road, New Delhi was taken on lease by one E. B. Brook and he inducted the appellant as a sub-tenant in the cottage portion which may hereinafter be referred to as demised premises. Mr. Brook surrendered his tenancy and vacated the portion in his actual possession on April 1, 1955 simultaneously calling upon the appellant to hand over possession of the premises in his possession to the then landlord one Lakhmir Singh, who is no more. Appellant did not vacate the premises in his possession but reached an agreement with Lakhmir Singh, the then landlord on June 20/22, 1955 to become the direct tenant of the then landlord of the premises in his possession on a monthly rent of Rs. 277.50 p. as stated in plaint, effective from May 1, 1955. On October 10, 1955 appellant filed a petition in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi under S. 8 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act for short ) praying for determination of the standard rent of the premises effective from the date of the commencement of his tenancy. Landlord Lakhmir Singh entered appearance and contested the application inter alia contending that the petition was barred by limitation. The trial Court held that the petition was not barred by limitation and fixed the standard rent at Rs. 855/- p.a. with effect from October 1, 1955. This decision was rendered on Aug. 4, 1960. In the meantime, landlord Lakhmir Singh sold the whole bungalow including the demised premises by a deed of conveyance dated December 21, 1959 in favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who on their own were impleaded in the proceedings.

3. The original landlord Lakhmir Singh and the two transferees from Lakhmir Singh preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge determining the standard rent in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that in view of the provision contained in S. 11 (b) the petition filed by the appellant for fixation of standard rent was barred by limitation. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the petition of the appellant was dismissed.

4. The appellant preferred Civil Revision No. 335-D of 1961 in the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh against the order of the learned District Judge. A learned Judge of the High Court agreed with the view taken by the learned District Judge that the petition was barred by limitation and accordingly rejected the civil revision petition by his judgment and order dated December 17, 1962 against which the appellant has preferred Civil Appeal No. 464 of 1971 by special leave.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings for determination of standard rent in the trial Court, the then landlord Lakhmir Singh filed Civil Suit No. 231/56 in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, at Delhi on July 3, 1956 against the appellant for recovering the arrears of rent and possession. Eviction was sought under S. 13(l)(a) of the Act primarily on the ground of default in payment of rent despite notice dated May 10, 1956 having been duly served upon the tenant. The appellant as defendant contested the suit inter alia contending that his petition for fixation of standard rent under S. 8 of the Act has already been instituted and is pending and unless the standard rent is determined he is not in a position to meet the demand of arrears of rent claimed at the agreed rate. It was also contended that a suitable reply stating the aforementioned facts to the notice served by the landlord was sent yet he has unnecessarily rushed to the Court without waiting for the determination of standard rent. It appears that alon