Sh. Keshav Prasad vs Sh. Bishamber Lal
2014 Latest Caselaw 5007 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+           RC.REV.No.327/2014 & C.M.No.16619/2014 (Stay)

%                                                    01st October, 2014

SH. KESHAV PRASAD                                            ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr.Mohit Batra, Advocate.

                          VERSUS

SH. BISHAMBER LAL                                            ...... Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,

1958 (in short 'the Act') impugns the order of the Additional Rent

Controller/trial court dated 03.7.2014 by which the trial court has decreed

the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the

Act on the ground that the leave to defend application was filed beyond the

prescribed statutory period of 15 days, and which inflexible period of 15

days cannot be extended in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in

the case of Om Prakash Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi, AIR 2010 SC 3791.

The application filed by the petitioner/tenant under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 was also dismissed by the impugned order.

2. I may note that actually the judgment which the trial court should

have relied upon besides the case of Om Prakash (supra), was of the case of

Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15, and

which judgment with specific reference to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

holds that there cannot be condonation of delay of even one day beyond the

prescribed statutory period of 15 days in filing of the leave to defend

application, and if the leave to defend application is not filed within the

statutory period of 15 days, the bonafide necessity eviction petition has to be

decreed in view of the deemed admission provision of Section 25B(4) of the

Act.

3. The impugned order records that the petitioner was served in the

ordinary method on 17.5.2014 and by registered post on 10.5.2014, but the

leave to defend application was filed on 03.7.2014 i.e admittedly beyond the

prescribed statutory period of 15 days. Once the leave to defend application

is not filed within the statutory period of 15 days, in view of the ratio of the

judgment in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra), the said leave to defend

application cannot be considered since there cannot be condonation of delay

in filing of the leave to defend application.

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

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

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J OCTOBER 01, 2014 KA