R.J. Mistry Sons & Co. & Ors. vs Smt. Himani Gupta & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5158 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   C.M.(M) Nos.2853-2857/2005

%                                                    14th October, 2014

R.J. MISTRY SONS & Co. & ORS.                    ......Petitioners
                    Through: Mr.Ashok Chhabra, Advocate.

                           VERSUS

SMT. HIMANI GUPTA & ORS.                                     ...... Respondents

Through: None 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 Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns

the order of the First Appellate Court/Rent Control Tribunal dated 07.9.2005

by which the Rent Control Tribunal has refused to condone the delay of just

13 days in filing of the first appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as 'the Act).

2. The first appeal was filed on 19.4.2005 against the judgment of the

Additional Rent Controller dated 28.2.2005 dismissing the objections filed

by the petitioners under Section 25 of the Act. Limitation period for filing

of the first appeal is 30 days to which the period taken in obtaining a

certified copy has to be added.

3. I have really failed to understand as to how the First Appellate Court

has refused to condone the delay of just 13 days because even as per the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N.Balakrishnan Vs.

M.Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222 relied upon by the First Appellate

Court, the Supreme Court has held that ordinarily once there is delay, there

is some sort of negligence inbuilt in such delays, but unless the delays are

affected by malafides or ulterior purposes, and especially if the same is not

long, the delay should be condoned. The Supreme Court in

N.Balakrishnan's case (supra) has also specifically observed that a person

does not get any benefit by filing of an appeal with delay.

4. Considering that the delay was just 13 days in filing of the appeal,

there was no reason for minor delay of just 13 days ought not to have been

condoned and the first appeal be not heard on merits.

5. In view of the, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated

07.9.2005 is set aside and the delay of just 13 days in filing of the first

appeal is condoned. The concerned Rent Control Tribunal will now hear

and dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

6. Trial court record be sent back.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J OCTOBER 14, 2014/KA