SUKHMAL JAIN Vs. BHAGWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the Orders dated 6th December, 1994 and 9th May, 1996 respectively passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The first Order declined to entertain the application for leave to defend on merits as it was filed after 17 days of service and the delay was held not condonable. The second Order disposed of an application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of delay in filing an application for leave to defend which was also dismissed.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the respondents filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein- after referred to as `the Act'). The petitioner was served on 30th April, 1994. The summons were allegedly delivered to him at the address 387 Kucha Bulaki Begum, Dariba Kalan though a plea was taken that the process server could not have gone to this address when the address was not mentioned in the process. The learned Additional Rent Controller did not accept the same and held that leave to defend application was filed two days beyond time as the petitioner himself had admitted to have received the summons on 30th April, 1994. The petitioner, however, contended subsequently that he was served on 2nd May, 1994 which plea was rejected. It is, however, not denied that the application for leave to contest was allegedly barred by time by two days. The learned Controller refused to exercise jurisdiction and passed an Order of eviction without considering the application on merits. The provisions as contained in sub-clause (4) of Section 25-B read as follows:-

(3.) The Third Schedule prescribed the period of 15 days for appearance and for filing an application for leave to contest. The relevant proforma as contained in this Schedule reads as follows:-