1984 Supreme(MP) 508

K. M. Agarwal, J.
Tara Prasan Singh v. Balram.
C. R, No. 536 of 1984 (J); Decided on 23-8-1984.

Headnote:Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P.) -- Ss. 23-A & 23-C -- application for permission to defend though barred by time but raising triable issue -- reason for delay also not palpable false or deliberate -- permission should be granted condoning delay.

        The non-applicant made an application under section 23-A(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereafter called the "Act") in the Court of the Rent Controlling Authority, Bilaspur. The summons of the case was served on the applicant on 11-2-84. On 13-2-1984, the applicant made appearance in the Court through a counsel and made a prayer for permission to engage a counsel. The case was, thereafter, adjourned to 27-2-1984 and then to 7-3-1984. On 6-3-1984, the applicant made an application under sec. 23-A of the Act for leave to defend the case and also made another application for condoning the delay in moving the said application on the ground that he was busy in his contract business and that the urgency of his business did not permit him time to make the application under sec. 23-A of the Act in time. By his impugned order, both these applications of the applicant were rejected by the learned Rent Controlling Authority. Hence, this revision has been filed.

        Held : After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision must be allowed. It cannot be disputed that the application for leave to defend the case does disclose triable issues and therefore, it could not have been ordinarily dismissed. However, the leave has been refused on the ground of limitation and after rejecting the application for condoning the delay in making the said application.

        According to me, the learned Rent Controlling Authority ought to have condoned the delay in making the application under section 23-C of the Act. The provisions of Section 23-A of the Act, are stringent in nature and, therefore, the leave should not be refused solely on the ground of delay in making the application, unless and until it is shown that the tenant was grossly negligent approaching the Court in time with an application under section 23-C of the Act or that the delay was deliberate. In the present case, I find that the reasons given by the applicant for not moving the application for leave to defend the case in time are not palpably false or deliberate. They do make out a case of sufficient cause for not moving the application in time. Consequently it ought to have been allowed by the Rent Controlling Authority. Revision allowed.