QURESH Vs. ROOPA FOTEDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil revision brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act challenging the eviction order dated December 17, 1986, made by an Additional Rent Controller, on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a learned Single Judge has made a reference on the question of law to be decided by this Bench. The relevant portion of the referermbered order is reproduced as follows :

(2.) We may notice the facts of the case before considering the question of law arising in the matter. In the perition brought under Chapter III-A of the Act, the landlord had sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence. Summons as prescribed in the IIIrd Sohe- rule were issued and were served personally on the tenant. The tenant was in law required to move an application for leave to appear and defend the eviction case within 15 days. The tenant could not do so and later on he moved such an application before the Controller and also prayed that the delay made by him in moving the said application may be condoned. It is not necessary to refer to the grounds pleaded in the application seeking condonation of delay. The application was rejected by the Controller on the short ground that the Controller had no power to condone the delay and the Controller admitting the facts stated in the eviction petition proceeded to pass the eviction order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that keeping in view the various provisions of the Act it must be held that the Controller is a Court .proper and thus, has the power to condone the delay by taking resort to provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.