SHAM SUNDER ARORA Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide his order dated 15.6.2010, has held that the summons issued, in the eviction petition, filed Under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "1949 Act"), were received by the Petitioner on 7.9.2006. The Petitioner/tenant has caused appearance on 12.9.2006. However, the Petitioner has filed an application for leave to contest the eviction petition on 12.1.2007 i.e. after the expiry of prescribed statutory period of 15 days. The Rent Controller has held that delay in filing the application for leave to contest cannot be condoned. The view, formulated by the Rent Controller, is in consonance with the interpretation of the provisions made by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

(2.) This Court in Vinod Kumar Mittal and Anr. v. Jagandeep Singh Rana, 2010 160 PunLR 690 and Narinder Kumar Mittal and Anr. v. Jagandeep Singh Rana Civil Revision No. 5211 of 2010, decided on 26.8.2010 had passed the following order:

(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 RecCivR 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 RecCivR 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: