VINOD KUMAR MITTAL Vs. JAGANDEEP SINGH RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, both the revision petitions viz. Civil Revision No. 5210 of 2010 titled as "Vinod Kumar Mittal and Anr. v. Jagandeep Singh Rana" and No. 5211 of 2010 titled as "Narinder Kumar Mittal and Anr. v. Jagandeep Singh Rana", shall be decided together.

(2.) The only question of significant importance, which this Court has to determine, is as to whether, after the expiry of 15 days period, as prescribed for leave to defend, the Rent Controller can condone the delay or not. In the present case, admittedly, there was a delay of two days in filing the application for leave to defend.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "1963 Act"), are not ousted and sufficient cause can be made out, a ground to seek condonation of the delay. Prima facie, this Court is also of the view that inherent powers of the Court and the provisions of the 1963 Act are not ousted. But this view of the Court necessarily has to yield the mandate of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh (death) through its L.Rs.,2010 1 RCR 608. It is not disputed that the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "1949 Act") are pari materia with Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, to seek eviction of the tenant, after the retirement of the landlord or as a Non Resident Indian. In Prithipal Singh's case (supra) their Lordships relied upon Parkash H. Jain v. Ms. Marie Fernandes,2003 2 RCR 559 wherein it was specifically stated that "there is no such thing as any inherent power of the Court to condone delay in filing the proceedings before the Court/Authority concerned, unless the law warrants and permits it". In para Nos. 14 and 15, their Lordships have held as under: