Allowed

(O&M) M/S Sethi Printing Press v. Malkiat Singh (Decided Case)

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Aug 2010CR/2201/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the High Court held that a one-day delay in filing an application for leave to contest an eviction petition falls within Section 5 of the Limitation Act and must be condoned. The Court set aside the Rent Controller's order refusing leave and directed a fresh decision within nine months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.2.2009 setting aside the order with the delay in filing application for leave to contest being condoned. The matter was remanded to the Rent Controller, Phagwara, to decide the

(O&M) M/S Sethi Printing Press Vs Malkiat Singh… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2201 of 2009

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Civil Revision No. 2201 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision: 11.8.2010

¶6

M/s Sethi Printing Press

…Petitioner

Versus

Malkiat Singh

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr.H.K. Aurora, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶15

Malkiat Singh, Non Resident Indian/landlord, filed an eviction petition against petitioner-tenant under Section13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “1949 Act”).

¶16

The case of the petitioner-tenant is that the service of summons was effected upon him on 12.1.2007. It was Sunday on 28.1.2007 and on 29.1.2007 the tenant filed an application for leave to contest the eviction petition. Therefore, it was filed within 15 days' time, as specified in the 1949 Act, as 28.1.2007, being the Sunday, is to be excluded from the days, to be counted, for filing of the application for leave to contest.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that period of

¶18

Civil Revision No. 2201 of 2009

¶19

¶20

limitation expired on 27.1.2007

¶21

The Rent Controller, Phagwara, without applying its mind, held that the application was not maintainable as the time cannot be extended by the Court. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/landlord had filed an eviction petition against another tenant M/s Guru and Company. In the said case, the Rent Controller, Phagwara, had granted leave to contest. Therefore, it is prayed that on parity also, in the present case, leave to defend ought to have been granted.

¶23

In S. Manohar Singh v. S.Aridaman Singh Dhillon 2002(2)

¶24

Rent Control Reporter 652 it was held by learned Single Judge of this Court that in case eviction petition has been filed under Section 13A of the 1949 Act, provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “1963 Act”) shall apply and under Section 5 of the 1963 Act, delay, in filing of application for leave to contest, can be condoned by the Courts.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent has not brought to my notice any judgment to the contrary.

¶26

Thus, this Court is of the view that delay of one day, in filing of the application for leave to contest, ought to be condoned.

¶27

In the present case, an application for leave to contest was filed by the petitioner/tenant, wherein it was stated that brother of the landlord, who is a Non Resident Indian, had effected the sale deed only to avail benefit of Section 13-B of the 1949 Act.

¶28

Taking totality of circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the view that the order dated 21.2.2009, passed by the Rent

¶29

Civil Revision No. 2201 of 2009

¶30

¶31

Controller, whereby leave to contest was declined, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is set aside. A delay of one day, in filing of an application for leave to contest, is condoned. The Rent Controller, Phagwara, is directed to decide the eviction petition within a period of nine months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶32

With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of.

¶33

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶34

August 11, 2010 “ DK ”

(O&M) M/S Sethi Printing Press v. Malkiat Singh (Decided Case)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) M/S Sethi Printing Press v. Malkiat Singh (Decided Case)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Vs Sharanjit Singh

Jaswant Singh Vs Punjab State Elect.Board

Khushal Chand Vohra Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M/S Yahoo Printing Press Vs Malkiat Singh

M/S Nawabi Printing Press Vs Malkiat Singh

M/S Welcome Tea Stall Vs Malkiat Singh