Full Text
Translation output
rk T HIGH COURT OF DELHI RC.REV.399/2OII MOI-ID HUSSAIN
& CMNo. 18378/2011 ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Kr. Singh, Advocate. veISus ..... Respondent
KAMI,ESH
Through: None.
& CMNo. 18378/2011 ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Kr. Singh, Advocate. veISus ..... Respondent
KAMI,ESH
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN ,la ts
ORDER oh 10.10.201r I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned
Additional Rent Controller whereby his application filed for leave to contest the eviction petition against hirn in respect of the tenanted premises by his landlady, the respondent herein has been disrnissed on the ground that it had not been filed within the prescribed period of 15 days fi'om the date of receipt of summons. For rejecting the belated leave to contest application as well as the accompanying application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, the learned Additional Rent Controller has followed the decision of the llon'ble Supreme Court in "Pritltipnl Sittglt vs. Satpal Sirtgh (D) through its LRs', t
1(2010) SLT 116 as well as a decision of this Court in "Sltyam Murari vs. Rajneesh K.
Kashyap & Anr.", 155 (2008) DLT 336 wherein it had been held that Rent Controller has no powers to condone the delay in filing leave to contest application by a tenant in an eviction petition under Section 1a(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Since the learned Additional Rent Controller has followed the decision of the superior Courts, which he was bound to do, no fault can be found in the impugned order justifying any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under
Section 258(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act under which all that this Court is to see is that the order under challenge is in accordance with law or not. The impugned order
RC.REV.399t20r1 page I of2 2011:DHC:16247 Ys :{ cannot be said to be not in accordance with law and consequently this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was also not in a position to argue that the impugned order is not in accordance with law. However, it was his contention there has to be some remedy for the tenants who for any explainable reason are unable to approach the Rent Controller seeking leave to defend within the prescribed period of 15 days from the date of receipt of summons and the doors of Courts cannot be shut for them and certainly not that of this Court which has the Constitutional powers under Articles
2261227 of the Constitution of India to deliver substantial justice.'
As far as the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned the same can be appropriately dealt with as and when the petitioner decides to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 2261227 of the Constitution of India.
As far as the present levision petition is concerned I refi'ain from making any observations on this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. And as far as the liberty prayed for invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Arlicles 2261227 of the
Constitution of India is concerned, it is needless to say that the right of any aggrieved person to invoke the same and no liberly is required to be obtained in this matter for that pu{pose.
This revision petition is disrnissed in limine.
P.K. BHASIN,J ocToBER 10,2011 nk
ORDER oh 10.10.201r I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned
Additional Rent Controller whereby his application filed for leave to contest the eviction petition against hirn in respect of the tenanted premises by his landlady, the respondent herein has been disrnissed on the ground that it had not been filed within the prescribed period of 15 days fi'om the date of receipt of summons. For rejecting the belated leave to contest application as well as the accompanying application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, the learned Additional Rent Controller has followed the decision of the llon'ble Supreme Court in "Pritltipnl Sittglt vs. Satpal Sirtgh (D) through its LRs', t
1(2010) SLT 116 as well as a decision of this Court in "Sltyam Murari vs. Rajneesh K.
Kashyap & Anr.", 155 (2008) DLT 336 wherein it had been held that Rent Controller has no powers to condone the delay in filing leave to contest application by a tenant in an eviction petition under Section 1a(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Since the learned Additional Rent Controller has followed the decision of the superior Courts, which he was bound to do, no fault can be found in the impugned order justifying any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under
Section 258(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act under which all that this Court is to see is that the order under challenge is in accordance with law or not. The impugned order
RC.REV.399t20r1 page I of2 2011:DHC:16247 Ys :{ cannot be said to be not in accordance with law and consequently this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was also not in a position to argue that the impugned order is not in accordance with law. However, it was his contention there has to be some remedy for the tenants who for any explainable reason are unable to approach the Rent Controller seeking leave to defend within the prescribed period of 15 days from the date of receipt of summons and the doors of Courts cannot be shut for them and certainly not that of this Court which has the Constitutional powers under Articles
2261227 of the Constitution of India to deliver substantial justice.'
As far as the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned the same can be appropriately dealt with as and when the petitioner decides to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 2261227 of the Constitution of India.
As far as the present levision petition is concerned I refi'ain from making any observations on this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. And as far as the liberty prayed for invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Arlicles 2261227 of the
Constitution of India is concerned, it is needless to say that the right of any aggrieved person to invoke the same and no liberly is required to be obtained in this matter for that pu{pose.
This revision petition is disrnissed in limine.
P.K. BHASIN,J ocToBER 10,2011 nk
RC.REV.399/2011 oage? of2
2011:DHC:16247
2011:DHC:16247
JUDGMENT