GOVERDHAN DASS Vs. SMT. INDRANI SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal from order has been filed by the tenant under Sec. 39 of the Rent Control Act, 1958 against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 1st Oct., 1964 by which he affirmed the order of the Controller dated 6th April, 1964 finally holding that the application moved by the tenant under section 9 of the Rent Control Act for fixation of standard rent was barred by section 12 of the Act and that there was no sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The facts of the case lie in a brief compass. The premises in dispute are newly constructed and were let out to the tenant on 16th of Jan., 1969 on a rent of Rs. 220.00 per month. It is common ground that under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Rent Control Act of 1958 the contracted rent between the parties was to be deemed to be standard rent for a period of 5 years from the date of first letting. The Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 come into force on 9th of Feb., 1959 and section 3 of the Act was amended with effect from Ist of Jan., 1963 by which the premises although owned by the Government and let out by the private parties to another were excluded from exemption of the Rent Act. Under Sec. 12 of the Rent Act application for fixation of standard rent had to be moved within a period of two years of commencement of tenancy or the Act of 1958 whichever was later and the proviso to the section permitted the Controller to condone the delay and entertain the time barred application. On 5th of Feb., 1963 the tenant moved an application under section 9 of the Act claiming fixation of standard rent alleging that the rent of the premises would be only Rs. 50.00 per month in place of the contracted rent of Rs. 220/. He filed an amended application on 28th of December. 1963 in paragraph 19 of which, he stated that he was entitled to exclusion of the period of 5 years from 1957-58 to 1962-63 on account of bonafide belief that the application was entertainable after exclusion of said period and he was entitled to condonation of delay. The landlord in his written statement dated 3rd of March, 1964 denied the said allegations, of the tenant emphatically and stated that the application for fixation of standard rent was barred by time and there was no ground for condonation of delay. It appears no separate application was made by the tenant for condonation of delay, nor was any affidavit filed in support of the said allegations. The Controller did not record any evidence and he proceeded to hear arguments and by order dated 7th of April. 1962, dismissed the application holding that inter alia that a mistake of law could never constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay and that each day's delay had to be explained by the petitioner in making the application and the tenant had failed to do so. On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal held that the tenant had not alleged any sufficient cause for condonation of delay in making the application and that the ignorance of law or erroneous view on a point of law was not sufficient ground for condonation of the delay and therefore, he affirmed the order of the Controller. Mr. Suri, learned counsel appearing for the tenant appellant, has urged that both the Tribunal and the Controller were in error in stating that no sufficient ground for condoning the delay had been alleged and that ignorance of law or an erroneous view on point of law could never have constituted a sufficient ground for condonation of delay and he further strongly urged that he had no opportunity to produce the evidence to substantiate allegations made in his application and satisfy the court that the grounds he had alleged were sufficient for condonation of delay. He has invited my attention to ground Nos. 3, 4 and 5 raised before the Tribunal where he had urged that the sufficiency of the cause alleged by him was a question of fact and ought to have been decided after giving the tenant an opportunity to produce evidence in support of same. He also invited attention to ground No. 4 raised in his grounds of appeal in this court where he has made a grievance of the fact that the Controller should have granted an opportunity to him to produce necessary evidence to prove the alleged facts. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a Division Belch judgment of this court in Gurcharan Singh Vs. Hans Raj reported as 1969 RCR 548 , where the learned Judges laid down as follows:-