Delhi High Court
Tilak Raj vs Smt Parvesh Sethi on 6 March, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 06-03-2014
+ RC.REV. 291/2011 & CM No.14380/2011
TILAK RAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Om Prakash Mishra, Adv.
versus
SMT PARVESH SETHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
% MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
1. The present petition impugns an order dated 09.05.2011 which
allowed the eviction petition of the respondent/landlord under Section
14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act)
directing eviction of the petitioner/tenant from premises bearing No.
27/94/9 Tikona Park, Opposite Balmiki Mandir, Shahdara, Delhi-32.
The application for leave to contest filed by the petitioner/tenant was
rejected on the ground that it was filed after the statutory period of 15
days. The petitioner has challenged the same on the ground that the
relevant provisions of the Act were not taken into consideration; that
the DRC Act has not been extended to the area in which tenanted
premises are situated; that there is no relationship of landlord-tenant
between the parties, that the eviction petitioner was not the owner of
the premises; that even in the absence of leave to defend, the petitioner
ought to have proved his case that the DRC Act extended to the
tenanted premises, that the petitioner/tenant ought to have been
granted at least one month's time to file the requisite notification to
prove that the provisions of DRC Act were not extended to the
tenanted premises. The Trial Court recorded that according to the
eviction-petitioner, the tenanted premises were leased out in the year
1983-84 @ Rs.400/- per month, (which was subsequently it was
increased to Rs.800/- per month), to one Shyam Lal Grover who was
working with his three brothers but later Shyam Lal Grover changed
his business and Tilak Raj started his business in the tenanted
premises. The petitioner required the premises for herself and her
unemployed son, Sachin Sethi, who intended to run his business in
order to look after his aged parents and she had no other
accommodation available to her for providing space to her son. Court
notice in the landlord's petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC
Act was served upon the tenant/present petitioner on 3.2.2010.
However, no leave to defend was filed within the statutory period of
15 days. The statement of the process server was recorded on 3.5.2010
to the effect that the summons were served on the said date of
3.2.2010. In the absence of leave to defend application to the eviction
petition, the Trial Court passed the eviction order as there was nothing
on the record which would constrain the passing of the eviction order
in summary proceedings envisaged under Section 25-B(4) of the Act
and the Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sham Murari
v. Rajneesh K. Kashyap & Anr., 155 (2008) DLT 336 to the effect
that the condonation of delay in leave to defend is not maintainable.
The Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh
(Dead) through its LRs., (2010) 2 SCC 15 has exposited that the time
cannot be extended for filing a leave to contest in an eviction petition.
Furthermore, while dealing with nearly identical provisions of the East
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the Supreme Court in Om
Prakash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi (2010) 2 RLR 289 held that the
Rent Controller cannot extend the time. It held:
"13. The views expressed by the High Court also formed
the subject matter of the decision in Prithipal Singh's case
(supra), though in the context of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958, and the rules framed thereunder. This Court
was of the view that Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control
act was a complete Code by itself and other provisions
could not, therefore, be brought into play in such
proceedings. In the instant case, the same principle would
apply having regard to the fact that the Rent Controller
had not been conferred with power under Order 9 Rule 13
C.P.C. to recall an ex-parte order passed earlier.
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
17. Section 13-B is a power given to a Non-Resident
Indian owner of a building to obtain immediate possession
of a residential building or scheduled building when
required for his or her use or for the use of any one
ordinarily living with and dependent on him or her. The
right has been limited to one application only during the
life time of the owner. Section 18-A(2) of the aforesaid Act
provides that after an application under Section 13-B is
received, the Controller shall issue summons for service on
the tenant in the form specified in Schedule II. The said
form indicates that within 15 days of service of the
summons the tenant is required to appear before the
Controller and apply for leave to contest the same.
There is no specific provision to vest the Rent Controller
with authority to extend the time for making of such
affidavit and the application. The Rent Controller being a
creature of statute can only act in terms of the powers
vested in him by statute and cannot, therefore, entertain an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay since the statute does not vest him
with such power.
In the circumstances, this Court is of the view insofar as the
Section 25-B of the DRC Act is concerned it is a complete code by
itself and does not provide any latitude to the Rent Controller to extend
the time. The provisions of CPC as well as the Limitation Act would
not be available to the Rent Controller to extend the time. In the
absence of any application for leave to contest or there being a
hindrance in the passage of the order of eviction in favour of the
petitioner it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to pass such an order.
There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It does not
suffer from any material irregularity. The petition is accordingly
dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI
(JUDGE)
March 06, 2014/ak
