Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roop Kishore Sharma vs Smt. Bachni Devi on 3 June, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998)118PLR63
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. Present is a revision and has been directed against the order dated 29.4.97 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh who dismissed the application of the petitioner praying that she may be permitted to defend the proceedings Under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, filed by the respondent.
2. Smt. Bachani Devi filed a petition Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against her tenant Roop Kishore Sharma for the eviction of the latter from the premises i.e. House No. 2236, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh. Notice was given to the tenant for 27.3.97 on 25.2.97 and tenant was duly served on 1.3.97. According to the latter he was to make an application for leave to defend within 15 days from the date of his service i.e. from 1.3.97, but he failed to do so and he made such application on 21.3.97 after expiry of 15 days. The said application was rejected vide orders dated 29.4.97 by the learned Rent Controller who gave the following reasons while rejecting the application as follows :-
"It has been mentioned in the application that the respondent was collecting some particulars for filing leave to defend and, therefore, he could not file application for leave to defend in time. The respondent has not pleaded which are the documents he was collecting for filing application for leave to defend. The respondent should have explained delay of each day from 16.3.97 to 27.3.97 for getting him entitled for condonation of delay. Moreover, this allegation that he was collecting documents to file application for leave to defend seems baseless because the respondent has not filed even a single document with the application fat leave to defend and application for condonation of delay. In Des Raj Sharma v. B.N. Mittal and Anr.,1 (1992-2)102 P.L.R. 529, it was held by our own Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that where the tenant did not seek leave to contest within stipulated period of 15 days in a petition Under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949 by the specified landlord and there was no explanation for delay, leave to defend was not to be granted. This authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case".
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 29.4.97 is liable to be set aside as the petitioner stated reasons in his application for the delay. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlady has refuted the contention raised by the learned counsel by stating that the petitioner has not been able to explain each day of delay in filing the necessary application.
4. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 29.4.97 is liable to be set aside. While disposing of such like applications, a too rigid approach is not supposed to be taken by the learned Rent Controller if the tenant has raised an arguable point in the application. Those points should be scanned through by judicial scrutiny. It is a case where some cause has been given by the tenant as to why he has not been able to make the application within 15 days. If there is a delay on the part of the tenant in filing the necessary application after the statutory period of 15 days then a liberal approach should be given to condone the delay unless the learned Rent Controller thinks that the delay on the part of tenant was mala fide affair. At this juncture it is not proper on the part of the trial Court that the delay in moving the application for defence was a motivated or mala fide.
5. It this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 29.4.97 is hereby set aside. Directions are given to the learned Rent Controller to decide the application on merits and according to law before 15.6.97. It will be open for the Rent Controller to form an independent view as to whether any defence is made out on the part of the present petitioner or not.
6. With above observations the present petition is hereby allowed. Order dasti to both the parties so that it may be produced before the learned Rent Controller in order to facilitate him to dispose of the application on or before 15.6.97. The operation of the order of vacation of the petition in the meanwhile is hereby stayed.