Delhi High Court
Vibhu Kumar vs Kuldip Kaur on 23 May, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:23.05.2012
+ CM(M) 622/2012 and CM No.9520/2012
VIBHU KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gurmit Singh Hans, Adv.
versus
KULDIP KAUR ..... Respondent
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. Impugned order is dated 24.02.2012 whereby the Rent Control
Tribunal (RCT) had refused to condone the delay in the appeal filed by
the appellant impugning the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2011; the
appeal was not entertained on merits; court was of the view that it is
time barred.
2. Record shows that an eviction petition has been filed by the
landlord-Kuldip Kaur under Section 4(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act (DRCA). In the course of the proceedings an application under
Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed; this is
admittedly a case of second default; petition under Section 14(1)(a) of
the DRCA was decreed on 14.02.2011. Appeal filed against such order
under Section 38 of the DRCA before RCT was accompanied with an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The averments made
in the said application have been perused. It is stated that the decree had
been passed on 14.02.2011 by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) on
an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code filed by the landlord;
contention being that a counsel had been engaged and he was
representing the petitioner/tenant on every date and in fact even on
14.02.2011 the status of the case had been confirmed by the said
counsel; it was only later in time that the petitioner/tenant learnt about
this petition having been decreed on 14.02.2011; he applied for a
certified copy of the order on 21.05.2011 and according appeal was filed
on 31.05.2011; there is a delay of 75 days in filing the appeal. This is the
gist of what is contained in the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act.
3. Relevant would it be to sate that not only the name of the counsel
who was defending the petitioner/tenant before the ARC has been
mentioned there is also not a whisper of the dates when the matter was
listed and when the counsel had informed the petitioner about the
proceedings of the case; even presuming that the counsel was negligent
and lackadaisical and he did not follow up his duty, there is nothing on
record to show that the petitioner's intents were bonafide; his attitude
appears to have been more contumacious; he was neglectful and there is
no explanation whatsoever why he did not appear before the Trial Court
himself even on single date after 17.09.2009 when admittedly (as per the
Trial Court record) he had been served with the application under Order
XII Rule 6 of the Code and had taken time to file a reply but in spite of
numerous adjournment granted he did not appear and finally the
application was taken up for hearing only on 09.07.2010 and then on
28.10.2010; order was finally passed on 14.02.2011. This intervening
gap between 17.09.2009 to 14.02.2011 is of more than almost 1-1/2
years; the litigant/petitioner/tenant choose to remain negligent about the
fate of his case; such an attitude deserves little sympathy. That apart as
noted supra the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act are lacking in all particulars; no dates have been
mentioned and not even the name of the counsel who was purportedly
representing the petitioner before the ARC and as to what action has
been taken against the counsel for not representing the case of the
petitioner bonafidely. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal of 75 days
remains totally unexplained; such delay being not justifiable, impugned
order has rightly declined the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation act. Since the appeal itself is time barred, the question of
merits could not be adverted to; impugned order suffers from no
infirmity.
4. Petition is without any merit; petition is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MAY 23, 2012
rb
