SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. SHRI VIKRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Section 25 B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against the order dated 21.02.2012 passed by the learned CCJ -cum -ARC wherein the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant, being barred by limitation, was dismissed and accordingly an eviction decree was passed in favour of the respondent landlord. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that a shop in premises bearing No. WZ -B -17, Ram Dutt Enclave, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi was let out by the respondent landlord to the petitioner tenant vide agreement dated 03.03.2003 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/ -. Thereafter, an eviction petition was filed by the respondent against the petitioner under section 14(1)(a) of the Act and the summons were served on the latter on 16.12.2011. The leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner on 21.02.2012 i.e. beyond the prescribed limitation period of 15 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the learned CCJ -cum -ARC that the reason for such delay was that the learned Predecessor of the Court had directed him to send the advance copy of leave to defend application first and then to file it before the Court, and hence the application could not be filed by him in time. Dismissing the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Trial Court observed that such plea was an afterthought and as such the Court had no power to extend the period of limitation in filing the leave to defend application and passed the eviction order.

(2.) THE impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to present his case and it is within the power of this Court that if sufficient cause is proved, the delay can be condoned in the interest of justice. It has been further stated that the affidavit filed along with the application for leave to defend was signed by the petitioner on 21.12.2011 and that he was under the impression that the application has been filed within time, but, due to default of the earlier counsel the petitioner's leave to defend application was dismissed.