Daulat Ram Jain vs Jaimala Jain
2006 Latest Caselaw 612 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

C.M.Appl.12289/2005

1. For the reasons stated in the application, which appear to be sufficient, this application is allowed. RC.Rev. 528/2001 & C.M. Appl. 1139/2001 & 1410/2002 are restored to their original number and file. This application stands disposed of.

RC.REV. 528/2001 & C.M. Appl. 1139/2001 & 1410/2002

2. RC. Rev. 528/2001 seeks to challenge order dated 16.2.2001 of the Rent Controller, Delhi (for short 'the Controller') in E-88/99 dismissing the application of the petitioner for extension of time for filing his leave to defend and decreed the petition under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act').

3. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Controller are that -

Petitioner in the present petition submitted inter alia that she is a widow aged more than 80 years and have three alive sons and two daughters and all are married. The elder son, Abhay Kumar Jain, has five sons an one of his sons is married and have two daughters. The third son, Pawan Kumar Jain, has his wife, one son and daughter and fifth son has also his wife and three sons and one daughter. Smt. Maya Jain, the married daughter of the petitioners, is also staying with the petitioner. The deceased husband of the widow petitioner let out the premises No.40-F, Kamla Nagar, Delhi specifically shown in the site plan to the respondent and now the premises in dispute is required by the petitioner for her own residence as well as for residence of her family member dependent upon her. She also submitted that elder son of the petitioner, Abhay Kumar Jain, whose family consists of 10 members has got only three bed rooms and other married son, Parveen Kumar Jain, his family consisting of six members also have three bed rooms and accommodation available to them falls short for themselves and at present petitioner does not have any alternative accommodation either in Delhi or elsewhere. She prayed on these ground for eviction of the tenanted premises specifically shown in red in the site plan which is in the possession of the tenant/respondent.

In the present petition respondent was served by way of publication on 8.10.99 by Ld. Predecessor of this Court and leave was not filed within the statutory time period. However, leave was filed by Ld. Counsel for the respondent on 22.11.99 after expiry of limitation period.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that his application for condensation of delay in filing his leave to defend, sets out sufficient material to enable the court to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner was not in a position to enter appearance and file his leave to defend within the time stipulated. He submits that the learned Controller ought to have condoned the delay and allowed the petitioner to contest the proceedings.

5. Counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Controller has no authority to extend the limitation and, therefore, any application for leave to defend filed beyond the stipulated period cannot be entertained. He relies upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Jagdish Pershad v. Smt. Phoolwati Devi wherein it is held that the Controller is not bound by the CPC nor can he transgress the powers specifically mentioned in the Act itself.

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the judgment under challenge, I am of the view that counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place anything on record to show that the learned Controller had the power to condone the delay.

7. In that view of the matter, I see no infirmity, irregularity, jurisdictional error or perversity in the order under challenge. RC.REV. 528/2001 & C.M. Appl. 1139/2001 & 1410/2002 are dismissed.