Full Text
01st October, 2014 SH. KESHAV PRASAD ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.Mohit Batra, Advocate.
Through:
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
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. 2014:DHC:5189 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