SHIV DUTT SHARMA Vs. PREM KUMAR BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Shiv Dutt Sharma is tenant of the respondent, Prem Kumar, in quarter No. 1on the preliminary ground that a period of five years had not expired after acquisition of the premises by Prem Kumar and, therefore, the proceedings for eviction of Shiv Datte premature in view of Sub-Section (6) of Section 14. The Rent Controller upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the application but the Rent Control Tribunal reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and remanded the proceedings to the Rent Controller for trial on merits. Hence this second appeal by Shiv Dutt.

(2.) Prem Kumar, respondent has raised the preliminary objecdion that this second appeal is barred by time mainly because the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller, which was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The appellant has not made any application for the extension of period of limitation on the ground that there was sufficient cause for the delay within the meaning of the proviso to Section 39(1) of the Act.

(3.) Two questions, therefore, arise for determination in this appeal, viz. (1) whether the eviction proceedings taken by Prem Kumar against Shiv Datt before the Rent Controller are premature in view of Sub-section (6) of Section 14 of the Act and (2) whether the present appeal is barred by time.