GURDITTAMAL Vs. BAI SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are four petitions of the tenants against the orders of the Additional Rent Controller. After a brief adjourn in the division bench these cases have come back for disposal.

(2.) The common features of these cases are that in each case the landlord brought a petition for eviction of the tenant under the newly introduced procedure of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) on the ground that he required the premises bona fide as a residence for himself and members of the family dependent on him. The tenant was required to apply for leave to contest the application of eviction within 15 days from the date of the service of the summons. The tenant defaulted in making the applications within the said period. The Additional Controller, therefore, made an order of eviction against the tenant, holding that the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction will be deemed to have been admitted by the tenant. From the order of eviction the tenants have filed petitions of revision under S. 25B(8) of the Act.

(3.) At the outset V.S. Deshpande J. on November 28, 1977 referred to a larger bench the question whether any time limit is laid down by the Act for a tenant to apply for leave to contest the application for eviction filed against him under Chapter III-A of the Act. He doubted the correctness of Dr. Mukhtiar Ahmed v. Mashialla Begum (1977) (2) RCR 642. In Avinash Chander v. Smt. Rama Devi, (1979) (1) RCR 209 I had expressed the view that the period of 15 days is provided both for putting in appearance as well as for filing application for leave to contest. A division bench (R. Sachar and Harish Ghandra JJ) on October 19, 1979 answered the question affirming my view. Now these cases have to be decided.