VIBHU KUMAR Vs. KULDIP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED order is dated 24.02.2012 whereby the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) had refused to condone the delay in the appeal filed by the appellant impugning the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2011; the appeal was not entertained on merits; court was of the view that it is time barred.

(2.) RECORD shows that an eviction petition has been filed by the landlord-Kuldip Kaur under Section 4(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). In the course of the proceedings an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed; this is admittedly a case of second default; petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRCA was decreed on 14.02.2011. Appeal filed against such order under Section 38 of the DRCA before RCT was accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The averments made in the said application have been perused. It is stated that the decree had been passed on 14.02.2011 by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) on an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code filed by the landlord; contention being that a counsel had been engaged and he was representing the petitioner/tenant on every date and in fact even on 14.02.2011 the status of the case had been confirmed by the said counsel; it was only later in time that the petitioner/tenant learnt about this petition having been decreed on 14.02.2011; he applied for a certified copy of the order on 21.05.2011 and according appeal was filed on 31.05.2011; there is a delay of 75 days in filing the appeal. This is the gist of what is contained in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.