MANU/DE/0445/1980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Civil Revision Appeal No. 574 of 1980
Decided On: 04.09.1980
Appellants: Pritam Singh
Vs.
Respondent: Bhajan Lal
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sultan Singh, J.
Counsels:
D.S. Marwah and K.C. Mittal, Advs
Case Note:
A. Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958--Section 25B--petition under Section 25B for
the revision of order passed by Additional Rent Controller application for leave
to contest by tenant was dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that
there was no provision for condoning the delay in filing the said application.
Held--the controller and the tribunal have inherent powers to exercise their
discretion in entertaining the application for leave to contest if sufficient
cause is disclosed in a particular case for not filing the application within 15
days of the service of the notice.
JUDGMENT
Sultan Singh, J.
(1) HEARD. Records examined.
(2) This is a revision petition under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
(hereinafter called 'the Act'). It appears that the petitioner was served on 18.12.1979
and he filed an application for leave to contest on 18/1/1980, accompanied by another
application under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure wherein he gave the reasons for not filing the application for leave to
contest prior to 18/1/1980. The Additional Controller dismissed the application for leave
to contest on the ground that there was no provision for condoning the delay in filing
the said application. This observation of the Additional Controller does not appear to be
correct. Mr. Mittal states that the Limitation Act is not applicable to Rent Control
proceedings and, Therefore, section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. It may be
so but the Rent Controller has inherent jurisdiction. In Gurditta Mal v. Bal Swarup,
MANU/DE/0284/1979 : AIR1980Delhi216 it has been held :
"In exercise of the inherent jurisdiction the Controller can set aside the order of
eviction and rehear and redecide the case if the tenant can show that he was
prevented from applying for leave for a sufficient cause."
(3) The petitioner in his application under section 151 of the Code read with Section 5
of the Limitation Act states that he can put his signatures in Urdu, he does not know
English or Hindi. He has also mentioned facts which have not been taken into
consideration by the Controller. Held the controller and the Tribunal have inherent

28-10-2022 (Page 1 of 2) www.manupatra.com NSA Chambers

powers to exercise their discretion in entertaining the application for leave to contest if
sufficient cause is disclosed in a particular case for not filing the application within 15
days of service. In the facts and circumstances of the case. whether leave to defend
should be granted is a matter for the Rent Controller to decide after taking into
consideration the various circumstances pleaded in the application. If the Controller
finds that there was sufficient cause for not filing the application for leave to defend
prior to 18/1/1980 he will proceed to consider the application for leave to contest the
eviction application.
(4) In these circumstances the order of Additional Controller dismissing the applications
of the tenant is set aside and both the applications are remanded to the Additional
Controller for decision in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before
Shri P.K. Dham, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on 29/9/1980 for further directions.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

28-10-2022 (Page 2 of 2) www.manupatra.com NSA Chambers