The provisions of Section 13-A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 constitute a special legislation and in view of sub-section (11) thereof the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked for dealing with the applications filed under that Section. The Rent Controller does not have the jurisdiction to extend the period of 15 days specified in the form appended to the Act and if the tenant fails to make an application within 15 days of the service of summons, he cannot be granted leave to contest the petition filed by the landlord under Section 13-A of the Act.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. This revision petition of the tenant has been placed before the Division Bench in view of the order dated 23.1.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The respondent-landlord, who now stands retired from service, filed an application under Section 13-A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 7.1.992 for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the residential premises situated at Kali Bari Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. by stating that he was working as Senior Personal Assistant to the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Punjab Circle and is to retire on 31.3.1992. The landlord also averred that he was living as a tenant in H. No. 4152, Kotwali Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. and was paying monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and that the demised premises were required for the use and occupation for himself and his family which consisted of himself, his wife, two sons and three daughters including the one who was married but was divorced.

3. Notice of the application filed by the landlord was served upon the petitioner- tenant on 14.1.1992 who filed an application dated 30.1.1992 seeking leave to contest the application on the ground that the demised premises are not residential and are not needed by the landlord. He also pleaded that the application filed by the landlord for ejectment of the tenant was already pending and, therefore, there was no justification to entertain the application filed by the landlord under Section 13-A.

4. The respondent resisted the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of leave to contest the application on the ground that it was barred by time. It was urged on his behalf that the summons of the application filed under Section 13-A of the Act had been served upon the tenant on 14.1.1992 and, therefore, he could file an application or affidavit for leave to defend within 15 days from 14.1.1992 i.e., upto 29.1.1992 and the application filed by him after that date was liable to be dismissed. On behalf of the petitioner, it was pleaded that the application for grant of leave had been filed within limitation because the summons were served upon him on 15.1.1992. The Rent Controller upheld the plea of the respondent-landlord that the application filed by the tenant was barred by time. He then examined the various grounds on which the landlord sought eviction of the tenant and passed the order dated 16.2.1993 for the latters ejectment.

5. Honble H.S. Bedi, J. who heard the revision petition felt that the decision of the learned Single Judge in Gian Singh Gandhi v. Surjit Singh, (1989-1)95 P.L.R. 335 and some observations made in Pooran Singh v. Jai Ram Dass, 1989(1) Rent Law Reporter 611 are contrary to the express provisions of the statute. Therefore, his Lordship referred the case for adjudication by a Division Bench.

6. Shri Ashok Sharma Nabhewala argued that the Rent Controller has gravely erred in holding that the application filed by the petitioner on 30.1.1992 for grant of leave to contest the petition filed by the landlord is barred by limitation because the summons were served upon the petitioner on 15.1.1992 and he could file application within 15 days i.e. upto 30.1.1992. He further argued that the provision contained in Section 13-A(2) of the Act read with the form of summons shows that the provision regarding filing of application for leave to appeal is directory and in any case, the period of 15 days specified in the form can be extended by the Rent Controller on sufficient cause being shown to explain the delay. Learned counsel submitted that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked by the Rent Controller for condoning the delay in the filing of the application. He relied on the decision of this Court in Gian Singh Gandhi v. Surjit Singh, 1989(1) P.L.R. 335, Roop Kishore Sharma v. Smt. Bachni Devi, (1998-1)118 P.L.R. 63 and also on the decision of Delhi High Court in Surinder K