VINAYAK RAO THITE Vs. PARWATI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is by the tenant against rejection of his application for leave to defend the application for ejectment filed by the landlord on the ground of delay.

(2.) THE applicant is tenant of the non -applicant in respect of the suit accommodation. The non -applicant filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority for ejectment of the applicant from the suit accommodation on the ground of need of her daughter's son, i.e., maternal grandson. It appears that summons of the application was not served on the applicant but he voluntarily appeared before the Rent Controlling Authority through his counsel and obtained a date for filing an application for leave to defend the application for ejectment. No such application was filed on the adjourned date or on the other dates given for that purpose. It was filed on 1.3.93 along with the written statement. The application for condoning the delay in filing the said application for leave to defend was filed on 15.3.93 along with an affidavit. The application for condoning the delay was rejected and accordingly the application for leave to defend was also rejected on the ground of delay. Being aggrieved, the tenant has preferred this revision.

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant -tenant might or might not have been right in what he contended about the legal provision in regard to service of summons and the commencement of the period of limitation for filing an application for leave to defend, I am of the view that the delay in filing the said application for leave to defend ought to have been allowed on the ground that there was basis for delay in filing the said application which might have been due to mis -construction or mis -conception of the legal provision in regard to service of summons of the application for ejectment in accordance with S. 23 -B of the Act. The provision about denial of right to defend an action is very stringent in nature. The grounds for condoning the delay and the basis on which condonation was sought ought to have been held to be sufficient to condone the delay in filing the said application. Refusal to allow the application for leave to defend the action for ejectment in the present case on the ground of delay appears to be in the nature of penalty and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.