LexPRITHIPAL SINGH versus SATPAL SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 736 A PRITHIPAL SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS. (Civil appeal No. 8501 of 2009) - B DECEMBER 18, 2009 [TARUN CHATIERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: c s.25-B and 14(1), proviso (e) - Petition for eviction of tenant u/s 14(1 ), proviso (e) on ground of bona fide requirement of landlord - Eviction ordered, as application of tenant for leave to file affidavit after eight days' delay to defend eviction proceedings was rejected by Addi. Rent Controller - D However, eviction order set aside by Addi. Rent Controller on application of tenant under 0.9, r.13 rlw 0.37, r.4 and s.151 CPC - High Court affinning the order - HELD: Section 25-B ' '-" is a complete code by which the entire procedure to be adopted for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide E requirement of landlord as specified in s.14(1)(e), has to be .. dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in s.25- B - Rule 23, being a general rule, does not confer any power on Rent Controller to follow provisions of CPC for eviction of tenants of special classes of landlords, in view of s. 25-8 - ; Besides, an application for leave to contest having been F rejected, may be on the ground of delay, could not be allowed when no application for condonation of delay could be entertained as provisions of Limitation Act could not be attracted - High Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in affinning order of Addi. Rent Controller allowing G application of tenant - Order of Addi. Rent Controller directing . eviction of tenant restored and impugned orders of High Court - and Addi. Rent Controller set aside - Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 - r.23 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 9, H 736 PRITHIPAL SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH (D) THROUGH 737 LRS. r.13, 0.37, r.4 and s.151 - Limitation Act, 1963. A In an eviction petition filed u/s 14(1), proviso (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the application filed by the tenant for leave to file affidavit, after a delay of eight days, to defend the eviction proceedings was rejected by the B Additional Rent Controller holding that he was not ., empowered to condone the delay in filing the application . ,, Consequently, eviction order in terms of s.25-8(4) was passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 28.2.2001. However, on an application filed by the tenant under 0. c 9, r.13 read with 0.37, r. 4 and s.151 CPC, the Additional Rent Controller set aside the order dated 28.2.2001, restored the proceedings and granted the tenant leave to contest the eviction proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition of the landlord filed under Article D 227 of the Constitution of India. - • In the instant appeal filed by the landlord, the questions for consideration before the Court were: (i) whether the Additional Rent Controller, exercising powers and jurisdiction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, E 1958, which is a special Act, was justified in setting aside ~ the order of eviction which amounted to restoration of ' and allowing the application for leave to defend the eviction petition although such application was rejected earlier on the ground of delay; and (ii) whether the F Additional Rent Controller was competent to recall orders of eviction on an application under 0. 9, r.13 read with 0.37, r. 4 and s.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and condone the delay in applying for leave to defend when he was not conferred with such power to condone G ..... the delay in filing the application for leave to defend the eviction proceedings under the Rent Act specially when such an affidavit (application for leave to defend) was earlier rejected by the Additional Rent Controller, on the ground of delay? H 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Legislature, by the 1976 amendment, inserting in the Delhi Rent Act, 1958, Chapter lllA, which consists of ss.25A to 25C, introduced a special provision B for summary trial of certain applications filed under the Act. Section 25-B is a complete code by which special procedure for disposal of applications for eviction of .... tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement filed at the • instance of the landlord uls. 14 or 14A or 148 or 14C or c 14D of the Act has been laid down. From a close examination of s. 25-8, it would be evident and clear that in an applicati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.