LexOM PRAKASH versus ASHWANI KUMAR BASSI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 10 S.C.R. 550 OM PRAKASH V. ASHWANI KUMAR BASSI (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24430 of 2008) AUGUST 27, ~010 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND AK. PATNAIK, JJ.] East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: s.138 - Eviction petition - Delay in filing application for leave to C contest the petition -Application under s. 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay - Held: Cannot be entertained as provisions of Limitation Act are not attracted - Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 5. 0 The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant under Section 13-8 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. As per the notice of the petition, the tenant was required to appear before the Rent Controller within 15 days from the date E of service of the notice and to apply for leave to contest the petition. The tenant was served with the notice of the eviction petition on 19th May, 2005 and he was required to file an application for leave to contest by 3rd June, 2005. The tenant filed the application on 4th June, 2005. Thereafter, the tenant filed an application under Section F 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application. The Rent Controller dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with the application for leave to defend the eviction petition, holding that the provisions of the Limitation Act G were not applicable in proceedings before the Rent Controller, particularly, for condoning the delay in filing an application for leave to contest the eviction petition. The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by H 550 OM PRAKASH v. ASHWANI KUMAR BASSI 551 the tenant. Aggrieved, the tenant filed the instant special A leave petition. Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court HELD: Section 13-8 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 gives privilege to a Non-Resident B Indian owner of a building to obtain immediate possession of a residential building or scheduled building when required for his or her use or for the use of any one ordinarily living with and dependent on him or her. The right has been limited to one application only C during the life time of the owner. Section 18-A(2) of the said Act provides that after an application under Section 13-8 is received, the Controller shall issue summons for service on the tenant in the form specified in Schedule II. The said form indicates that within 15 days of service D of the summons, the tenant is required to appear before the Controller and apply for leave to contest the same. There is no specific provision to vest the Rent Controller with authority to extend the time for making of such affidavit and the application. The Rent Controller being a E creature of statute can only act in terms of the powers vested in him by statute and cannot, therefore, entertain an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay since the statute does not vest him with such power. In such case, neither the Rent F Controller nor the High Court committed any error of law in rejecting the tenant's application for seeking leave to contest the suit, since the same had been filed beyond the period prescribed in the form of Schedule II of the Act referred to in Section 18-A(2) thereof. [Para 17, 18) [559- G A-H; 560-A-B] Gaya Prasad Kar v. Subrata Kumar Banerjee (2005) 8 SCC 14; Prithipal Singh v. Satpa/ Singh (dead) through its LRs. (2010) 2 SCC 15 - relied on. H 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 10 S.C.R. A Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurajil Aboobacker (1995) 5 sec 5 - distinguished. · Akesh Wadhawan and Ors. (2002) 5 SCC · 440; Ashwani Kumar Gupta v. Siri Pal Jain (1998) 2 RCR 222; Prakash H. B Jain v. Marie Fernandes (2003) 8 SCC 431 - referred to. Case Law Reference: (1995) 5 sec 5 distinguished Paras 7, 15 · (2005) 8 sec 14 relied on Paras 7, 15, 16 c (2002) 5 sec 440 referred to Para 8 (2010) 2 sec 15 relied on Para 10, 13 (1998) 2 RCR 222 referred to Para 11, D (2003) 8 sec 431 referred to Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. 24430 of 2008. From the Judgment & Order dated 05.10.2007 of the High E Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in civil Revision No. 5129 of 2007. F G H Ujjal Singh, J.P. Singh, A.S. Bahar, R.C. Kaushik for the Petitioner. · S.S. Rana, Bindra Rana, Vikrant Rana, Sanatombi Koijam, Pooja Thakur (for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.