Full Text
16th July, 2014
NETRA PRAKASH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurabh Jhamb and Ms. Jasmine, Advocates.
Through: Mr. R.C.Pathak and Mr. Ratneshwar Kumar, Advocate.
SHAM SUNDER ..... Petitioner
NETRA PRAKASH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The impugned judgments dismissed the leave to defend applications both on the ground of limitation as also on merits.
2. The Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 has held that the statutory period of 15 days for filing of the leave to defend application is sacrosanct and courts cannot condone delay even of one day in filing of the leave to defend application. It has been held by the Supreme Court that the procedure which is specified under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is an exhaustive procedure and no other provision including Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 or any other provision of CPC in view of Rule 23 can be added to the procedure of Section 25-B.
3. In the present cases, in one case leave to defend is delayed by one day and in other two cases by three days. Therefore, there is delay and the delay whether it be of one day or of three days cannot be condoned there is no need to discuss the merits of the matter.
4. I may state that counsel for the respondent states that petitioner are letting out electricity to weekly market and earning thousands per month, however, I would not like to comment one way or the other because I am dismissing the petitions.
5. In view of the above, the petitions are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JULY 16, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib