Sh.S.Ravinder Pal Singh vs Sh.Kewal
2014 Latest Caselaw 6197 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+           RC.REV.No.573/2012 & C.M.No.20161/2012 (Stay)

%                                                  26th November, 2014

SH.S.RAVINDER PAL SINGH                                  ......Petitioner
                   Through:           Mr.Niraj Jha, Advocate.

                         VERSUS

SH.KEWAL                                                 ...... Respondent

                         Through:     Mr.Nitin Sharma with Mr.Vineet
                                      Gandhi, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not? (Yes)


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner/tenant impugns the order of the Additional Rent

Controller (ARC) dated 01.10.2012 by which the Additional Rent Controller

(RC) has dismissed the leave to defend application on account of the same

being barred by time as it is stated to have been filed beyond the statutory

period of 15 days prescribed for filing of the leave to defend application

under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 25B of the Act and the prescribed

summons in the schedule and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction

petition. It is not disputed that the petitioner/tenant was served before the

summer vacations, however, the statutory period of 15 days admittedly

expired within the summer vacations and the leave to defend application was

filed on the first re-opening day after vacations.

2. As per Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 when the limitation

period for any application expires on the date when the court is closed, the

application may be instituted on the day when the court re-opens. No doubt,

the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead)

through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 has held that the Limitation Act does not

apply with respect to the special procedure under Section 25B read with

Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, however, in my opinion, merely because strictly

the provisions of the Limitation Act will not apply will not mean that the

leave to defend application has to be filed even when the court is closed.

3. Admittedly, as per the notification issued for summer vacations, the

court of the Additional Rent Controller was closed officially and was only

open to receive the certain urgent matters. Obviously, the court being open

to receive urgent matters however does not take away the fact that the court

of the ARC was closed when the last day of 15 days period expired. Even

the civil courts when they are closed, there is a vacation bench, but existence

of a vacation bench to receive the urgent matters does not mean

that the courts are not closed. In my opinion the requirement of filing of a

leave to defend application within a statutory period of 15 days has

necessarily to be read as the period of 15 days expiring on the date when the

court is re-opened after vacations once the fifteenth day falls in the

vacations. The spirit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies that the leave

to defend application has to be filed on the first re-opening date of the court,

inasmuch as, as stated above even when the court is closed, where can a

litigant file the leave to defend application.

4. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 01.10.2012 is set

aside. Parties to appear before the ARC (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on

15.12.2014 and the ARC will now hear and dispose of the leave to defend

application in accordance with the law.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 26, 2014 KA