PUNJAB STAINLESS STELLHOUSE Vs. SANGEETA KEDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 07.9.2011 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner/tenant to amend the leave to defend application.

(2.) AT the outset, I would like to observe that the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs : (2010) 2 SCC 15 has held that the statutory period of 15 days for filing of the leave to defend application is inflexible and condonation of even one day is not possible for filing of the leave to defend application. Effectively, therefore the Supreme Court has observed that whatever has to be stated in the leave to defend application with respect to the facts and events which has happened prior to the 15 days period must be stated in the leave to defend application and not by subsequent affidavits and documents. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Madhu Gupta vs. Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd. : 184 (2011) DLT 103 has placed reliance upon the ratio of the judgment in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra) and held that no amendment should be granted to the leave to defend application because if amendment is allowed to a leave to defend application then the sanctity of the 15 days period will get destroyed. A reading of the judgment in the case of Madhu Gupta (supra), however, shows that what were sought to be added by the amendment were the facts and events which existed prior to the expiry of 15 days period and not which had come into existence subsequent to the expiry of the 15 days period.