Shri Rajendra Kumar vs Shri Vikram Singh
2012 Latest Caselaw 4906 Del

*                 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RC. Rev. No.417/2012

                                           Date of Decision: 22.08.2012

Shri Rajendra Kumar                                    ...... Petitioner

                          Through:    Mr. Anurag Abhishek, Adv.

                                 Versus

Shri Vikram Singh                                   ...... Respondent

                          Through:    None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 25 B(8)

of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read

with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against the order

dated 21.02.2012 passed by the learned CCJ-cum-ARC wherein the

leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant, being barred

by limitation, was dismissed and accordingly an eviction decree was

passed in favour of the respondent landlord.

2. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that a shop in premises

bearing No. WZ-B-17, Ram Dutt Enclave, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi was

let out by the respondent landlord to the petitioner tenant vide agreement

dated 03.03.2003 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. Thereafter, an

eviction petition was filed by the respondent against the petitioner under

section 14(1)(a) of the Act and the summons were served on the latter

on 16.12.2011. The leave to defend application was filed by the

petitioner on 21.02.2012 i.e. beyond the prescribed limitation period of

15 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the

learned CCJ-cum-ARC that the reason for such delay was that the

learned Predecessor of the Court had directed him to send the advance

copy of leave to defend application first and then to file it before the

Court, and hence the application could not be filed by him in time.

Dismissing the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

Trial Court observed that such plea was an afterthought and as such the

Court had no power to extend the period of limitation in filing the leave

to defend application and passed the eviction order.

3. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the

ground that the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to

present his case and it is within the power of this Court that if sufficient

cause is proved, the delay can be condoned in the interest of justice. It

has been further stated that the affidavit filed along with the application

for leave to defend was signed by the petitioner on 21.12.2011 and that

he was under the impression that the application has been filed within

time, but, due to default of the earlier counsel the petitioner's leave to

defend application was dismissed.

4. Section 25B of the Act, which provides for summary trial of

applications for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement, is a

code in itself and the provisions of CPC have no applicability in

proceedings instituted under the said Section. Sub-section (1) of

Section 25 B clearly stipulates that the application for eviction shall be

strictly dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this

Section. There is no such thing as any inherent power of court to

condone delay in filing an application for leave to defend before

Court/Authority concerned, unless the law warrants and permits it, since

it has a tendency to alter the rights accrued to one or the other partly

under the Act. In Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh(Dead) through LRs.

2009(14)SCALE 672, the question of applicability of the provisions of

CPC for condonation of delay in filing leave to defend application was

raised before the Apex Court. While answering the question in negative,

the Apex Court held that Section 25B was inserted by the Legislature

for bonafide requirement of a certain classes of landlords, in which the

entire procedure has been stipulated. Section 25B itself is a special code

and therefore, Rent Controller, while dealing with an application for

eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, has to

follow strictly in compliance with Section 25B of the Act.

5. Moreover, the pleas taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner

before the Trial Court as well as this Court are flimsy and untenable.

Law protects the rights of the vigilant and not those of the ignorant. In

view of the above discussion, I find no illegality or perversity in the

impugned judgment which could merit interference by this Court. The

petition being without merit is hereby dismissed in limine.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

AUGUST , 2012 ss/awanish