Subhash Chand Jain vs Smt. Kanta Jain
2014 Latest Caselaw 3057 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CM(M) 649/2014

%                                                    11th July , 2014

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN                                        ......Petitioner
                 Through:                Mr. R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate.



                          VERSUS

SMT. KANTA JAIN                                             ...... Respondent
                          Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

+C.M. (M) No.649/2014 and C.M. No.10908/2014 (stay)

1.           This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

impugns the order of the court below dated 4.6.2014 which declined the

prayer of the petitioner/tenant (respondent before the Additional Rent

Controller) for filing an additional affidavit in support of the application for

leave to defend.

2.           The Court of the Additional Rent Controller has relied upon the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal

C.M.(M) No.649/2014                                                Page 1 of 3
 Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 which holds that the procedure

which is specified under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is an exhaustive procedure and Rule 23

of the Rules which provide for application of CPC cannot be read in to

change the specific procedure as stated in the provision of Section 25B

pertaining to leave to defend. Supreme Court has held that no leave to

defend application can be filed after a period of 15 days as provided under

the Act.

3.           Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present

case, leave to defend application has been filed in time, and therefore the

judgment in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra) will not apply, however, I

cannot agree inasmuch as if the argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is

accepted, then, it will amount to negating the 15 days period which has been

held by the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra) as

sacrosanct. The object of law is that whatever has to be stated in an affidavit

seeking leave to defend has to be stated within 15 days and not thereafter. If

filing of additional affidavit is permitted, then, there is no reason why

additional affidavit cannot be permitted at any point of time and which will

not only defeat the period of limitation of 15 days for filing of an exhaustive

leave to defend application but also will enable not one but several
C.M.(M) No.649/2014                                               Page 2 of 3
 additional affidavits at different points of time.

4.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the

same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




JULY 11, 2014                                   VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne