Delhi High Court
Mohd. Haroon & Anr. vs Mohd. Yahya on 24 September, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ R.C.REV. 205/2012
Date of Decision: 24.09.2012
MOHD. HAROON & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.K.Mrakru, Adv. with
Mr.Mohd. Sajid, Adv.
Versus
MOHD. YAHYA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent
Control Act (for short the 'Act') is directed against the order dated
19.3.2012 of the CCJ-cum-ARC, whereby the leave to defend
application filed by the petitioners/tenants, was dismissed.
2. The short point requiring consideration of this court is as to
whether the leave to defend application filed immediately on the
opening of the courts after summer vacations, though the 15 days'
period to file the same had expired during summer vacations, could be
taken to be filed within time or not.
3. In the instant case, the petitioners were served of the summons
under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act on 6.6.2011.
The period of 15 days' prescribed for filing leave to defend expired on
21.6.2011, when the courts were closed due to summer vacations. The
courts reopened on 2.7.2011 and on the same day, the leave to defend
application was filed by the petitioners/tenants.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent/landlord is that there was a notification dated 25.5.2011
issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi regarding the working
of the Rent Controllers during summer vacations. A look at the
notification would show that it mentioned about deputing of Rent
Controllers/Addl. Rent Controllers during summer vacations-2011 to
dispose of the urgent matters of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was
submitted by the respondent/landlord that the filing of the leave to
defend application within 15 days of service is statutory and non-filing
thereof, was to entail serious consequences; the filing thereof would
be taken to be as a matter of urgent nature and hence, the
petitioners/tenants could have filed leave to defend application before
the expiry of 15 days, during summer vacations. It was also submitted
that Section 4 and 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply to the
proceedings under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act.
The learned counsel for the respondent sought to place reliance on the
judgments of Om Prakash Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi, 2010 (2) Rent
Control Reporter Pg. No. 244 (SC) and in M/s. Aster Publishing Vs.
Sh. Niwas Aggarwal & Others, 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 234 to contend
that the court has no power to condone the delay in filing the leave to
defend application, and that the provisions of the Limitation Act as
well as General Clauses Act could not be attracted.
5. I have given my considered thought to the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that Section 4 of
the Limitation Act would not apply to the proceeding under Section
14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act. But, then, it cannot be said
that in a situation like this, the petitioners would be remediless, for no
fault of their. As a layman, the litigant is neither supposed to know nor
expected to have information about the notification, if any, issued by
the District & Sessions Judge regarding the working of the Rent
Controllers/Addl. Rent Controllers during summer vacations. In any
case, the deputing of Rent Controllers during summer vacations was
only for urgent matters under the Act. Filing of the leave to defend
application by any means cannot be said to be the matter of urgent
nature, which would necessarily have to be filed during the vacations.
The remedy of such cases is available in Section 10 of the General
Clauses Act, which reads thus:
"10. Computation of time.-
(1) Where, by any [ Central Act] or Regulation made after the
commencement of this Act, any act or proceeding is directed or
allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain
day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is
closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the
act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due
time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which
the Court or office is open:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any act or
proceeding to which the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of
1857), applies.
(2) This section applies also to all [Central Acts] and Regulations
made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887".
6. The proviso to the Section 10 (1) makes the provision of Section
10 inapplicable to the case where Indian Limitation Act applies, and
since Indian Limitation Act does not apply to the rent petitions filed
under the Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 10 of the General Clauses
Act in term, would apply to the filing of the rent petitions also.
According to this Section, an act should be considered to be done
within the prescribed period, even if it is done on the next date in
which the court or office is open. Similar view was taken by the
Supreme Court in election petitions in Lachhman Das Arora Vs.
Ganeshi Lal and Others, (1999) 8 SCC 532 as also Simhadri Satya
Narayana Rao Vs. M.Budda Prasad & Ors. [(1990) Supp. 3 SCR
701].
7. In view of my above discussion, I am of the view that the
learned ARC has grossly erred in observing that Section 10 of the
General Clauses Act would not apply, and that the leave to defend
application filed by the petitioners on the opening day of the courts,
after summer vacations, would be barred by the time. The order of
ARC has resulted in manifest injustice to the petitioners. The same is
accordingly set aside. The leave to defend application, which has been
filed by the petitioners/tenants shall be disposed by the learned ARC
on merits, uninfluenced by the fact of the petitioners having
approached this court. Parties shall appear before the court of ARC on
15.10.2012.
8. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 24, 2012/akb
