V K AGGARWAL Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the ARCT dated 04.02.2006; the RCT had dismissed the application filed by the tenant/petitioner under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) read with Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code); this application had been dismissed as a subsequent corollary to the dismissal of his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlord-Vijay Kumar under Section 14(1) (a) (b) and (h) of the DRCA against the Respondents, namely, Smt. Shanta Soni and Sh. Tinu Soni (respondent Nos. 2 and 3); the contention of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was that they had, in fact, sub-tenanted these premises to the Petitioner i.e. to V.K. Aggarwal; decree of eviction had been passed in favour of the landlord Vijay Kumar on 15.11.1999. The Petitioner V.K. Aggarwal who was in possession of the suit premises was dispossessed on 15.10.2000. Contention of the Petitioner was that thereafter i.e. from the date of his dispossession, he had made efforts to contact his counsel and he was able to contact him but the necessary documents relating to the title of the property could not be collected by him. His contention is that he is an independent title holder in the suit property and is not a sub-tenant of Vijay Kumar.

(3.) The premises in dispute are property No. 1863/2254, Ward No. XV, Wazir Singh Street, Paharganj, New Delhi. The averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed before ARC have been perused. Primary ground is that the collection of documents could not be effected in time as the Petitioner did not material particulars. The ARCT as also the RCT had both correctly noted that no sufficient cause for was made for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal under Section 25 of the DRCA i.e. after about 80 days from the date of dispossession. The ARCT as also the RCT had noted that although no special period of limitation has been prescribed under the DRCA for filing an application under Section 25, yet guidelines have to be taken from the Limitation Act which is the statute governing all limitations and relying upon the Article 128 of Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act a period of 30 days was held to be the statutory period for assailing an order of dispossession from the property. In the present case admittedly, the Petitioner had been dispossessed on 15.10.2000; he had filed the application under Section 25 of the DRCA only on 05.01.2001. The courts below had correctly noted that no sufficient cause has been made for condonation of delay when admittedly Petitioner was out of the property on 15.10.2000, the period of 80 days in assailing that order remained unexplained. Vehement contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that this is a fit case for remand.