NEENA SARNA Vs. K D NAGRATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, the tenant preferred this Civil Misc. (Main), under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The short controversy is that the petitioner was served on 27.5.1994, whereas application for leave to defend was filed on 17.1.1995. As there was an inordinate delay in filing the application for leave to defend, the Additional Rent Controller held that as the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to the proceedings before him, the delay cannot be condoned and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of Mukri Gopalan Vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker AIR 1995 SC 2272 and Smt. Kamal Bhandari Vs. Brig. Shamsher Singh Malhotra AIR 1982 Delhi 102, the Additional Rent Controller is a Court and the provision of Limitation Act would be applicable to the proceedings instituted under Rent Control laws.

(2.) On the other hand, Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the respondent has contended that in view of special procedure enacted under Section 25-A and Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which itself is a complete code, provisions of Limitation Act would not be applicable to the Delhi Rent Control Act. In support of his contention, he has cited and Md. Quaresh Vs. Smt. Roopa Fotedar & Ors. 1990 RLR 112.

(3.) In my considered view, the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to him. Firstly that Mukri Gopal's case (supra) pertains to Rent Act in Kerala. Whether provisions like Section 25-A and 28-B are in the statute or not, have not been brought to the notice of this Court. Secondly, in Md. Quresh, the Division Bench of this Court took the following view: