* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV.No.573/2012 & C.M.No.20161/2012 (Stay)
% 26th November, 2014
SH.S.RAVINDER PAL SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.Niraj Jha, Advocate.
VERSUS
SH.KEWAL ...... Respondent
Through: Mr.Nitin Sharma with Mr.Vineet
Gandhi, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? (Yes)
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner/tenant impugns the order of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 01.10.2012 by which the Additional Rent Controller (RC) has dismissed the leave to defend application on account of the same being barred by time as it is stated to have been filed beyond the statutory period of 15 days prescribed for filing of the leave to defend application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 25B of the Act and the prescribed summons in the schedule and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition. It is not disputed that the petitioner/tenant was served before the RC.REV.No.573/2012 Page 1 of 3 summer vacations, however, the statutory period of 15 days admittedly expired within the summer vacations and the leave to defend application was filed on the first re-opening day after vacations.
2. As per Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 when the limitation period for any application expires on the date when the court is closed, the application may be instituted on the day when the court re-opens. No doubt, the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 has held that the Limitation Act does not apply with respect to the special procedure under Section 25B read with Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, however, in my opinion, merely because strictly the provisions of the Limitation Act will not apply will not mean that the leave to defend application has to be filed even when the court is closed.
3. Admittedly, as per the notification issued for summer vacations, the court of the Additional Rent Controller was closed officially and was only open to receive the certain urgent matters. Obviously, the court being open to receive urgent matters however does not take away the fact that the court of the ARC was closed when the last day of 15 days period expired. Even the civil courts when they are closed, there is a vacation bench, but existence of a vacation bench to receive the urgent matters does not mean RC.REV.No.573/2012 Page 2 of 3 that the courts are not closed. In my opinion the requirement of filing of a leave to defend application within a statutory period of 15 days has necessarily to be read as the period of 15 days expiring on the date when the court is re-opened after vacations once the fifteenth day falls in the vacations. The spirit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies that the leave to defend application has to be filed on the first re-opening date of the court, inasmuch as, as stated above even when the court is closed, where can a litigant file the leave to defend application.
4. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 01.10.2012 is set aside. Parties to appear before the ARC (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 15.12.2014 and the ARC will now hear and dispose of the leave to defend application in accordance with the law.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 26, 2014 KA RC.REV.No.573/2012 Page 3 of 3