Dismissed

Sukhwinder Singh v. Harjeet Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2013CR/4757/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application to set aside a Rent Controller's order. The Controller rightly rejected the tenant's prayer for leave to defend an eviction petition because it was filed on the 16th day, exceeding the 15-day statutory limit prescribed under the Act.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to be allowed to defend was dismissed as the petition was filed beyond the 15-day statutory limit.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Harjeet Kaur — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶2

AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CR No.4757 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision: 12.08.2013

Sukhwinder Singh

-----Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Harjeet Kaur

-----Respondent(s)

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶10

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶11

To be referred to reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present:Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. ---

¶14

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.

¶15

Vide impugned order dated 31.7.2013, the Rent Controller, Derabassi has declined the prayer of the petitioner for grant of leave to defend a petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the respondent-landlord has filed the aforesaid petition on the basis of false documents.

¶17

Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.16 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶18

CR No. 4757 of 2013

¶19

¶20

However, a perusal of the impugned order would show that application for leave to defend was, admittedly, filed after expiry of the statutory period of 15 days, as prescribed under the Rules and thus, noticing the aforesaid fact, the Rent Controller has rejected the prayer for grant of leave to defend an eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord. The observations of the Rent Controller read thus:-

¶21

“14. Another point for consideration of the court that cropped up in this case is limitation for filing application for leave to contest. In that regard it is hereby observed that Section 13-B East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is a complete code in itself. That is why procedure has been laid down in the same for serving notice upon tenant as per Schedule of Section 18A of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and as per performa specified in Schedule-II which requires that on service of notice upon tenant, he has to apply for leave to contest the eviction application within 15 days from the date of service. A logical corollary of the provision clearly prescribes that if the tenant fails to apply to the court within 15 days from the date of service of notice then the time for filing application for leave to contest cannot be extended or condoned and statutory provisions snatch the jurisdiction/power of the Rent Controller to condone or extend the time. 15. In this case the notice was sent by court as per Performa provided under Schedule-II of Sub-section 2 of Section 18A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and in that notice there is a clear

¶22

Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.16 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶23

CR No. 4757 of 2013

¶24

¶25

stipulation that the tenant applicant is bound to apply within fifteen days from the date of service and to obtain leave of the court to contest the application in default thereof the applicant/petitioner/landlord will be entitled at any time after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days to obtain an order for eviction of tenant from the demised premises. In this case notice was issued on 14.5.2013 and service was effected upon tenant-applicant on 15.5.2013 and the applicant tenant has filed an application for leave to contest on 31.5.2013 which is beyond period of 15 days and the application has been filed on 16^th day of service and hence it is beyond limitation and time can neither be condoned nor it can be extended and application of law prescribed under Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be extended to proceedings of this case. This view has been fortified by the law laid down by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in case titled as 2009(2) Rent Law Reporter page 209 (P&H) titled as Harnek Singh Vs. Paramjit Singh.”

¶26

In view of the aforesaid fact alone, this Court is not inclined to go into any other question, as it is well settled that the period for making an application for leave to defend cannot be extended.

¶27

Dismissed.

¶28

August 12, 2013 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.16 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶31

CR No. 4757 of 2013

¶32

¶33

Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.16 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Sukhwinder Singh v. Harjeet Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhwinder Singh v. Harjeet Kaur

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

Krishan Lal Dewan Chand & Anr. Vs Sham Bala

Hari Ram etc. Vs Shankar etc.

Satish Kumar Vs Banwari Lal & Anr.

Satinder Singh Vs Gurmukh Singh& Ors.

J P Singla Vs M/S Imperial Gardens Private Ltd. & Ors.

(O&M) Sham Lal Vs Ram Partap etc.