Back
High Court Of Delhi
JAGDISH PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
PHOOLWATI DEVI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 165 of 1978
Decided On : 03/07/1980
RENT CONTROL - Extension of limitation period - Controller's power - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Ss. 14, 14a, 25b, 37(1), (2), Third Schedule - Limitation Act, 1963, Ss. 5, 29(2).
Fact of the Case:
Tenant failed to apply for leave to contest eviction application within 15 days as prescribed in the Third Schedule to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. He sought extension of the period on the ground that he was ill and could not reach Delhi till the evening of 18-7-1977. The Additional Controller held that he had no power to extend the period of limitation. In a revision petition filed by the tenant, a conflict of judicial authorities as to whether the provisions of the Limitation Act applied to the proceedings before the Controller and whether the Controller had any power to extend the period of limitation prescribed by the Act either under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or otherwise was noted and the case was REFERRED TO the Division Bench.
Finding of the Court:
1. The provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act apply to applications made to a Tribunal or authority which is not a court. 2. The question of the application of the provisions of the Limitation Act to an application made under a special or local law would not arise unless the said application is made to a court. 3. The Controller or Additional Controller is not a court. 4. The provisions of natural justice statutorily supported by Section 37(1) do not help the petitioner to obtain an extension of the period of limitation beyond the 15 days prescribed under the Third Schedule to the Act. 5. Section 37(2), however, applies the analogy of the practice and procedure of the court of Small Causes, namely, the Code of Civil Procedure, to the proceedings before the Controller. 6. The Controller has the discretion to give the benefit of the provisions of Order 37 Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, to a tenant-defendant seeking leave to defend himself against application by the landlord against him under the provisions of Chapter IIIA. 7. In the present case, the circumstances urged by the petitioner are not such as necessitate a reconsideration of the case by the Controller resulting in the setting aside of the order of eviction and granting the leave to defend.
Issues: 1. Whether the Controller has power to extend the period of limitation of 15 days prescribed in the Third Schedule to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act), for obtaining leave to contest the application for eviction filed by the landlord against the tenant on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 or under Section 14a thereof either by invoking Section 5 read with Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 or otherwise. 2. Whether the provisions of the Limitation Act and in particular Section 29 (2) thereof apply to applications made to a Tribunal or authority which is not a court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act apply to applications made to a Tribunal or authority which is not a court. 2. The question of the application of the provisions of the Limitation Act to an application made under a special or local law would not arise unless the said application is made to a court. 3. The Controller or Additional Controller is not a court. 4. The provisions of natural justice statutorily supported by Section 37(1) do not help the petitioner to obtain an extension of the period of limitation beyond the 15 days prescribed under the Third Schedule to the Act. 5. Section 37(2), however, applies the analogy of the practice and procedure of the court of Small Causes, namely, the Code of Civil Procedure, to the proceedings before the Controller. 6. The Controller has the discretion to give the benefit of the provisions of Order 37 Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, to a tenant-defendant seeking leave to defend himself against application by the landlord against him under the provisions of Chapter IIIA. 7. In the present case, the circumstances urged by the petitioner are not such as necessitate a reconsideration of the case by the Controller resulting in the setting aside of the order of eviction and granting the leave to defend.
Final Decision: The revision of the tenant is dismissed with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE question REFERRED TO the Division Bench is whether the Controller has power to extend the period of limitation of 15 days prescribed in the Third Schedule to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act), for obtaining leave to contest the application for eviction filed by the landlord against the tenant on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 or under Section 14a thereof either by invoking Section 5 read with Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 or otherwise. The respondent landlady filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner-tenant under clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. Such an application is governed by the expeditious procedure laid down in. Section 25b of the Act. As required by Section 25b (4) the summons to the tenant was issued in the form Specified in the Third Schedule. The tenant was informed thereby that "you are hereby summoned to appear before the Controller within fifteen days of the service here of and to obtain the leave of the Controller to contest the application for eviction on the ground aforesaid; in default whereof, the applicant will be entitled at any time after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days to obtain an order for your eviction from the said premises. " The tenant was served on 31-5-1977, but the application for leave to contest the eviction application was filed on 19-7-1977. The tenant sought the extension of the period of limitation of 15 days prescribed in the Third Schedule on the ground that he had gone to Dehra Dun in the third week of June 1977, to see his brother-in-law, where he fell ill and could not reach Delhi till the evening of 18-7-1977. A medical certificate, dated 17-7-1977 from a doctor of Dehra Dun was filed by the tenant staling that the tenant was under the treatment of that doctor since 27-6-1977 and was advised rest for three weeks. The Additional Controller held that he had no power to extend the period of limitation because the period prescribed by the Third Schedule gives a corresponding right to the landlady that if the tenant does not apply for leave to contest within fifteen days the landlord would have the right to evict the tenant. In a revision petition filed by the tenant before the learned Single Judge, a conflict of judicial authorities as to whether the provisions of the Limitation Act applied to the proceedings before the Controller and whether the Controller had any power to extend the period of limitation prescribed by the Act either under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or otherwise was noted and the case was REFERRED TO the Division Bench.
( 2 ) LET us first consider if Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act applies the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the application to be made to the Controller by the tenant under the Third Schedule. Section 29 (2) is as below: " (2) Where any special or local Jaw prescribed for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Section 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. The application of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act may be analysed as below: " (1) The Delhi Rent Control Act being a special or local law prescribes for an application for leave to defend a period of 15 days. (2) If the Limitation Act were to apply, then the period of limitation prescribed for an application not otherwise provided for is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act and is three years thereunder. The period of 15 days prescribed by the Third Schedule of the Delhi Rent Control Act ca
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
