(1.) Learned counsel for the Respondent at the outset submits that the Petitioner is not paying the user charges as directed by this Court and thus the interim order passed in favour of the Petitioner as fixed by this Court in terms of the decision of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2005 1 SCC 705 be vacated. Learned counsel for the Petitioner admits that the user charges as directed by this Court have not been paid. He however, states that he is ready to address arguments in the matter and thus arguments have been heard.
(2.) Aggrieved by the order dated 25th September, 2013 whereby the leave to defend application of the Petitioner was dismissed for the reason the same was filed beyond the period of 15 days, the present petition has been preferred.
(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the learned ARC wrongly relied upon the decision in Prithpal Singh vs. Satpal Singh (Dead) through LRs, 2010 2 SCC 15. The High Court being the Court of original jurisdiction as well as the Court of Appeal it has inherent powers to condone the delay and thus the same should be considered by this Court and on the facts of the case the delay be condoned. It is further stated that in Prithpal Singh the applicability of law of limitation was directly not in consideration and the only issue was whether the Controller can recall an order of eviction by applying the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 CPC. It is further submitted that dehors the delay in the application for leave to defend being not condoned, the learned Trial Court was bound to look into the fact that the eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') was not maintainable and the same was maintainable only under Section 22 of the DRC Act. Reliance is placed on Madan Mohan Lal vs. P.Tandon, 1982 21 DLT 16 and Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sitar Ram Goel, RC Rev. No.401/2012 decided on 14th August, 2012.