Neena Sarna vs Dr. K.D. Nagrath & Others
1999 Latest Caselaw 792 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller, the tenant preferred this Civil Misc. (Main), under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The short controversy is that the petitioner was served on 27.5.1994, whereas application for leave to defend was filed on 17.1.1995. As there was an inordinate delay in filing the application for leave to defend, the Addl. Rent Controller held that as the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to the proceedings before him, the delay cannot be condoned and dismissed the application for condo-nation of delay. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of Mukri Gopalan Vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker and Smt. Kamal Bhandari Vs. Brig. Shamsher Singh Malhotra , the Addl. Rent Controller is a Court and the provision of Limitation Act would be applicable to the proceedings instituted under Rent Control Laws.

2. On the other hand, Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the respondent has contended that in view of special procedure enacted under Section 25-A and Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which itself is a complete code, provisions of Limitation Act would not be applicable to the Delhi Rent Control Act. In support of his contention, he has cited and Md. Quresh Vs. Smt. Roopa Fotedar & Ors., 1990 RLR 112.

3. In my considered view, the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to him. Firstly, that Mukri Gopal's case (supra) pertains to Rent Act in Kerala. Whether provisions like Section 25-A and 25-B are in the statute or not, have not been brought to the notice of this court. Secondly, in Md. Quresh, the Division Bench of this Court took the following view:

"Now coming to Chapter III-A it may be noticed that Sec. 25-A of Act gives an overriding effect to the provisions of this Chapter as it has been mentioned therein "the provisions of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force". Sec. 25-B prescribes a special procedure for the disposal of an application for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. Sub-sections (1) to (10) read with the proforma of summons contained in the third Schedule is a complete Code on such matters. Hence, it is evident that the Parliament had not given any power to the Controller to condoned the delay made by the tenant in moving any application seeking leave to appear and defend the case u/s. 25-B(4). Even if it were to be held that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the provisions of the Act even then in view of provisions of Sec. 25-A the same would stand superseded by the provisions contained in Sec. 25-B read with the third Schedule.

4. Supreme Court was considering a matter pertaining to the applicability of Limitation Act to an appeal, the provisions as made in the Delhi Rent Control Act under Section 25-A and 25-B excluded the applicability of Limitation Act.

5. In any event of the matter, the husband of the petitioner was the original tenant and Mrs. Neena Sarna, wife of the tenant who has filed this petition in this Court, before the Addl. Rent Controller was imp leaded as respondent No. 1 and Ms. Priya Sarna was respondent No. 2 and Ms. Bena Sarna was respondent No. 3. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are daughters of the petitioner - Mrs. Neena Sarna. Respondent No. 3 applied for leave to defend and leave to contest was granted to respondent No. 3. Therefore, no right has been lost even otherwise to the petitioner.

6. I do not see any infirmity with the order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller.

7. Petition is dismissed.