MOHD SAEED QURESHI Vs. SHAHABUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 31st May 2008 passed by learned ARC tribunal dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 5 of the limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

(2.) AN eviction order was passed against the petitioner on 25th May 2007 by the learned ARC under Section 14 (1) (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Aginst this, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 38 of the DRC Act on 21st february 2008 accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation, since the period of 30 days limitation for filing the appeal had expired. In the application, the petitioner took the plea that he could not file the appeal in time because his wife was seriously ill at that point of time and she expired after long illness. The appellant went in deep sorrow and did not remember about the proceedings of the case and the judgment passed by the trial court. He, therefore, could not contact his advocate for taking proper steps as per law and the delay in filing the appeal was due to this reason. The respondent resisted the application on the ground that the averments made in the application were vague and the petitioner did not state the true facts.

(3.) THERE was a delay of more than 7 months in filing the appeal, after taking into account the period spent in obtaining certified copies. The learned arct observed that onus to show that the appellant was prevented from filing the appeal in time by a sufficient cause was on the appellant. The appellant had not brought on record anything to explain the delay in filing the appeal. He had not disclosed when his wife fell ill, what was the nature of illness, for how long she remained ill and when she expired etc. The appellant had also not placed on record any document whatsoever to show that she was under medical treatment at any point of time during the relevant period. In absence of these material, learned trial court found that the averment in application were completely vague and without any substance. The appellant had failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.