KAILASH DEVI Vs. BRIJ PAL MANOCHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is filed against the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 27.5.2013 which has decreed the eviction petition for bonafide necessity on account of the petitioner/tenant failing to file leave to defend application within the statutory period of 15 days inasmuch as delay cannot be condoned in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs, 2010 2 SCC 15.

(2.) Though counsel for the petitioner has sought to again argue that this Court has power to condone the delay in exercise of inherent powers or such powers which every High Court has to do justice, however, I refuse to allow the petitioner to raise such argument because if I permit so, it will be violating the direct ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh which says that neither the Additional Rent Controller nor the High Court has power to condone the delay of even one day inasmuch as neither the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 nor the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) apply to the special procedure for eviction of the tenants on the ground of bonafide necessity.

(3.) There is however one ground which is rightly raised by the petitioner with respect to challenge to the impugned order, and which is that the impugned order grants eviction not only with respect to the tenanted premises with respect to which eviction was sought but also for an additional area. In order to appreciate this contention the operative portion of the impugned order is reproduced below:-