GIANI KARNAIL SINGH Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated February 5, 1988, whereby the application filed by the tenant for leave to contest the proceedings under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act), was dismissed as barred by time.

(2.) THE landlord Bachan Singh filed the application under Section 13-A of the Act. Necessary application for leave to contest the same as contemplated under Section 18-A of the Act, was filed within, time but the same was not supported by an affidavit. However, no order as such was passed thereon. Meanwhile, the tenant moved another application supported by an affidavit for leave to contest. Along therewith, he also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act far extention of time. The learned Rent Controller found that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, were not applicable to those proceedings and therefore, he dismissed the application as barred by time.

(3.) ON behalf of the petition, it has been stated that the first application was filed within time, but the same was not supported by affidavit and, therefore, the affidavit could be allowed to be filed consequently. The question of extending time as such under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, did not arise However, in this Court, an affidavit has been filed by the local counsel Shri Kundan Singh Nagra, Advocate that the though the affidavit of Karnail Singh, tenant, was also prepared the same day, i. e. August 25, 1986, and it was got attested the same day, but his Clerk filed the application without the said affidavit. According to the said affidavit, the mistake was bona fide.