Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
Ramesh Tuli - Appellant
Versus
Sharda Kapoor - Respondent
RC. REV. No. 64/2008 and CM No. 9632/2008
Decided On : 04-08-2008
Delay Condonation - Delhi Rent Control Act - The court held that the Additional Rent Controller does not have the power to condone the delay in filing an application under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, based on previous court decisions and the settled position of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application for leave to defend beyond the 15-day period required by the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application and allowed the eviction petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merits in the petition based on the settled position of law and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issue raised was whether the Additional Rent Controller has the power to condone the delay in filing an application under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision in Prithi Pal Singh v. Satpal Singh and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Jain v. Marie Fernandes to conclude that the Additional Rent Controller does not have jurisdiction to entertain an application filed beyond the 15-day period, and the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
The only question raised in this petition is whether the Additional Rent Controller has power to condone the delay in filing application under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner in this case was served with a notice of the petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act read with Section 25-B. The petitioner was supposed to file an application for leave to defend within 15 days however, the petitioner filed this application beyond the period of 15 days and was filed after about 22 days. The learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application and allowed the eviction petition.
2. The issue raised by the petitioner is no more res integra. This Court in Prithi Pal Singh v. Satpal Singh 133(2006) DLT 686 had held that the Court of Additional Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 25B which is filed beyond the period of 15 days and the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable. The Court had also referred to the decision of Hon?ble Supreme Court in Prakash jain v. Marie Fernandes, 2004 RLR 83(SC) in support of this view.
3. Inview of the settled position of law, I find no merits in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.
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
