Back
1985 Supreme(Del) 314
High Court Of Delhi
RAM KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
VIRENDER KUMAR - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 22 of 1985
Decided On : 08/24/1985
B.P.GUPTA, M.M.Sudan
A new interpretation of law by the Supreme Court cannot be considered a sufficient cause for condoning a delay of more than three years in filing an appeal.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - EXTENSION OF ACT - JURISDICTION OF CONTROLLER - CONDONATION OF DELAY - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - INTERPRETATION OF LAW BY SUPREME COURT - DELAY IN FILING APPEAL - LIMITATION ACT, S. 5 - DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958, SS. 14 (1) (A), (C), (F), (J), 15 (1), (6), (7), 39.
Fact of the Case:
Tenant appealed against an eviction order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal under S. 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Controller had no jurisdiction to try the application as the Act had not been extended to Raja Park, Shakur Basti, Delhi where the shop was situated. The tenant filed a review petition, which was also dismissed. The tenant then filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the order made by the Additional Controller was a nullity as he had no jurisdiction to pass the eviction order. The suit was dismissed. The tenant filed a second appeal, which was also dismissed. The tenant then filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the delay in filing the second appeal could not be condoned. The court held that the interpretation of law by the Supreme Court in Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath, AIR 1984 SC 1392, which held that the Controller had the discretion to extend the time prescribed in S. 15 (1) of the Act for the purpose of giving the benefit of the provisions contained in S. 14 (2) and 15 (6) of the Act, was not a sufficient cause for condoning the delay of more than three years. The court held that condoning the delay would lead to chaos and confusion, as many eviction orders had been made on the basis of the earlier interpretation of law by the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth Mills vs Hem CAW AIR 1977 SC 1986, which held that the Controller had no such discretion.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the second appeal could be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the interpretation of law by the Supreme Court in Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath, AIR 1984 SC 1392, which held that the Controller had the discretion to extend the time prescribed in S. 15 (1) of the Act for the purpose of giving the benefit of the provisions contained in S. 14 (2) and 15 (6) of the Act, was not a sufficient cause for condoning the delay of more than three years. The court held that condoning the delay would lead to chaos and confusion, as many eviction orders had been made on the basis of the earlier interpretation of law by the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth Mills vs Hem CAW AIR 1977 SC 1986, which held that the Controller had no such discretion.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the second appeal.
( 1 ) THIS is a tenant s appeal from the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated 18. 2. 82. It was filed on 6. 7. 85. It being barred by time the appellant has also filed an application (CM 1908/85) for condonation of delay.
( 2 ). The dispute is in respect of a shop No. WZ 67 (New No. 2252) Raja Park, Shakur Basti. It was let out to the appellant by Sohan Lal (since deceased) on 5. 6. 64. On 13. 12. 76 the landlord brought an application for recovery of the possession of the said shop u/s 14 (1) (a), (c), (f) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ).
( 3 ). The petition was resisted. In those proceedings an order u/s 15 (1) of the Act was madeon 26. 10. 77 directing the tenant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 35. 00 p. m. with effect from 1. 7. 74 within one month of the order and also to continue to pay or deposit the future rent at the said rate month by month by the 15th of each succeeding English calender month. The tenant was allowed an adjustment of Rs. 230. 00. The rent for the month of Nov. 1977 was deposited in Jan. 1978. The landlord, therefore, moved an application u/s 15 (7) of the Act for striking out the defence. The application was dismissed on 17. 8. 78. There was again a delay of one day in the deposit of rent for the month of April, 1979. This time also the application moved by the landlord for striking out the defence was dismissed. Ultimately an order for eviction, however, was made u/s 14 (l) (a) of the Act. The appellant was not given the benefit of the provisions in S. 14 (2) and 15 (6) of the Act because of the defaults in depositing the rent for the months of Nov. 1977 and April, 1979. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth Mills vs Hem CAW AIR 1977 SC 1986 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 18. 2. 82.
( 4 ). The appellant thereafter moved a review petition on 23. 2. 82 before the Tribunal, alleging that the Controller had no jurisdiction to try the application as the Act had not been extended to Raja Park, Shakur Basti, Delhi where the shop was situated. This was dismissed on 26. 2. 82. Same objection was raised by him in a petition filed before the Additional Controller on 3. 3. 82. Appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Tribunal on 20. 7. 82 and second appeal was dismissed by this Court on 14. 9. 82. Thereafter fresh objections were raised that the tenancy was in the name of firm Ram Kumar Satish Kumar of which Satish Kumar, (son of the present appellant) was a partner and therefore the order passed against Ram Kumar was not binding on the firm. Stay of execution of the eviction order was not granted. Satish Kumar filed a petition, C. M. (M) 197/82 in this Court. On 23. 9. 82 this court directed the Controller to decide the petition within 15 days of the order. The objection petition was dismissed on 8. 10. 82 and subsequently the said C. M. was also dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant, thereafter filed a civil suit (suit No. 648/82) seeking a decree fot declaration that the order made by the Additional Controller was a nullity as he had no jurisdiction to pass the eviction order. The suit was dismissed on 14. 12. 83.
( 5 ). Sohan Lal, decres-holder died in the meantime and his L. R. s (the present respondents) were brought on record. The appellant therereafter resisted the execution of the warrants for possession. On 6. 1. 84 an application for police aid was moved by the respondents. The appellant thereafter filed objections stating that he had entered into a fresh agreement with Vinod Kumar, one of the respondents. The said objections were dismissed on 6. 5. 85.
( 6 ). Having failed in these delaying tactics the tenant filed this second appeal on 6. 7. 85 u/s 39. It provides a period of 60 days for filing an appeal to High Court from an order made by Tribunal. Excluding time spend for certified copy of the order of Tribunal there was admittedly a delay of more than 3 years. The appellan
