TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Ujjal Singh, J.P. Singh, A.S. Bahar, R.C. Kaushik, Advocates, for the Petitioner. S/Shri S.S. Rana, Vikrant Rana, Mrs. Bindra Rana, Ms. Sanatombi Koijam and Ms. Pooja Thakur (for S.S. Rana Co.), Advocates, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : Altamas Kabir, J.]. - This Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th October, 2007, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab Haryana High Court, dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. 29 of 2007 which had been filed by the Petitioner herein against an order dated 4th August, 2007, passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana. By his said order the Rent Controller dismissed the Petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application for leave to contest the eviction petition. Consequently, the application for leave to contest the eviction petition was also dismissed. 2.The Respondent herein filed an application for eviction of the Petitioner from the premises in question under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as "the 1949 Act". Notice of the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to entitle the landlord to an order of eviction. On the other hand, the Rent Controller should have recorded the evidence of the landlord and it is only after such evidence was recorded and the Rent Controller, was satisfied as to the existence of grounds for eviction of the tenant under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act, that the order of eviction could be passed. 4. On consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the High Court took the view that the provisions of Section 18-A of the 1949 Act have an overriding effect on all other laws inconsistent therewith and that Sub-section (7) of Section 18-A of the 1949 Act and Section 17 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, were not attracted to the facts of the case or in a situation where leave to contest has been declined for any reason whatsoever. The High Court further held that under the circumstances, there was no statutory obligation upon the Rent Controller to frame issues or to try the eviction petition by calling upon the petitioner to lead evidence. The High Court further held that refusal to grant leave to contest amounts to admission of the contents of the eviction petition and if the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Rent Control) Act, 1965, functions as a Court and as a result the period of limitation under the said provisions governing appeals would be computed keeping in view the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Reference was made to a decision of this Court in Gaya Prasad Kar v. Subrata Kumar Banerjee [(2005) 8 SCC 14], wherein it was held that having regard to the beneficial provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which allowed extension of time for making deposit of arrears of rent, the provisions of the Limitation Act and, in particular, Section 5 thereof, would also be applicable. 8. Yet another decision of this Court in the case of Akesh Wadhawan Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation Ors. [(2002) 5 SCC 440], was referred to on behalf of the Petitioner in the context of the 1949 Act, in which it was held that subsidiary rules of interpretation envisage, that in case of ambiguity, a provision should be so read as to avoid hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity and anomaly. It was held that since a statute can never be exhaustive, courts have jurisdiction to pass procedural orders, though not specifically contemplated by statut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same lines relating to the 1949 Act and Sections 13-B and 18-A thereof. 12.From the materials on record it is clear that the application for leave to contest the application under Section 13-B of the 1949 Act has to be made within 15 days from the date of service of the summons. In this case, the application for leave to contest the application was made one day after the said period had expired. The issue for consideration before us is whether the Rent Controller was right in rejecting the application on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to condone the delay under the Act. The matter was considered at length by the High Court, which, as indicated hereinabove, came to the conclusion that Section 18-A of the 1949 Act would have an overriding effect on all other laws inconsistent therewith and that Sub-Section (8) of Section 18-A of the 1949 Act and Section 17 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, were not attracted to the facts of the case. 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 Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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. 18. In such case, neither the Rent Controller nor the High Court had committed any error of law in rejecting the Petitioner's application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
