SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Del) 815

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
Ramesh Tuli – Appellant
Versus
Sharda Kapoor – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Mukesh Kr. Verma, Advocate

JUDGMENT

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 merit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top