VIJAY KUMAR Vs. SURINDER TAMNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision No. 1755 of 2006 (Vijay Kumar v. Surinder Tamna) and Civil Revision No. 1756 of 2006 (Keshi alias Rakesh Kumar v. Surinder Tamna) are being decided by this judgment as common questions of law and fact are involved in both these petitions. Facts are, however, taken from Civil Revision No. 1755 of 2006.

(2.) SURINDER Tamna respondent had filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short Rent Act) for eviction of the petitioner from the shop under reference. Summons were sent to the petitioner for 27.1.2005 in the prescribed proforma. The said summons were served on the petitioner on 1.12.2004. However, the petitioner appeared in the Court of Rent Controller on 27.1.2005 and filed an application in the form of affidavit for leave to contest the eviction petition along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The version of the petitioner was that many other eviction petitions filed by the respondent were pending trial against the petitioner. The petitioner had approached his counsel on 27.1.2005 as the date was 22.1.2005. Therefore, an application for condonation of delay was filed on 27.1.2005 along with an application for leave to contest.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and vide impugned order dated 7.3.2006 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for leave to defend by holding that provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are alien to the provisions of Section 13-B read with Sections 18-A and 18-B of the Rent Act and, therefore, leave to contest the eviction petition could be filed only within 15 days from the date of service. Hence the present petition by the tenant-petitioner.