PREM KUMAR BHATIA Vs. SHIV DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Shiv Datt Sharma, is a tenant of the respondent, Prem Kumar, in Quarter No. 1-G/33. The quarter originally belonged to the Government from whom it was acquired by Kimat Rai. On 10.2.1960 Kimat Rai entered into an agreement of sale with Prem Kumar. By June, 1960 Kimat Rai delivered possession of the same to Prem Kumar. On 9.8.1960 Prem Kumar leased it to Shiv Datt on a monthly tenancy. On 14.4.1961, Kimat Rai formally transferred the premises to Prem Kumar. On 3.4.1962 Prem Kumar started proceedings of the eviction of Shiv Datt before the Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on the ground, inter alia of bonafide requirement for occupation of residence for himself and other members of his family dependant on him as provided in Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The application was resisted by Shiv Datt on 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 Datt were 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 Datt.

(2.) Prem Kumar, respondent has raised the preliminary objection 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.