Subhash Chand Jain v. Kanta Jain

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the court below dated 4.6.2014 which declined the prayer of the petitioner/tenant (respondent before the Additional Rent Controller) for filing an additional affidavit in support of the application for leave to defend.

2. The Court of the Additional Rent Controller has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal 2014:DHC:3218 Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 which holds that the procedure which is specified under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is an exhaustive procedure and Rule 23 of the Rules which provide for application of CPC cannot be read in to change the specific procedure as stated in the provision of Section 25B pertaining to leave to defend. Supreme Court has held that no leave to defend application can be filed after a period of 15 days as provided under the Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present case, leave to defend application has been filed in time, and therefore the judgment in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra) will not apply, however, I cannot agree inasmuch as if the argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, then, it will amount to negating the 15 days period which has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra) as sacrosanct. The object of law is that whatever has to be stated in an affidavit seeking leave to defend has to be stated within 15 days and not thereafter. If filing of additional affidavit is permitted, then, there is no reason why additional affidavit cannot be permitted at any point of time and which will not only defeat the period of limitation of 15 days for filing of an exhaustive leave to defend application but also will enable not one but several additional affidavits at different points of time.

4. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JULY 11, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne