9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (8) TMI 465 - SC - Indian LawsAppeal and application Limitation - petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation, delay in filing the application which was dismissed by the Rent Controller - Rent Controller had not been conferred with power under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to recall an ex parte order - Rent Controller being a 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 Controller nor the High Court had committed any error of law in rejecting the Petitioner s application for seeking leave to contest the suit, since the same had been filed beyond the period prescribed in the form in Schedule II of the Act referred to in Section 18-A(2) thereof.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Limitation Act to proceedings before the Rent Controller. 2. Interpretation of Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. 3. Requirement for recording evidence by the Rent Controller after refusal to grant leave to contest. 4. Jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the Limitation Act to proceedings before the Rent Controller: The primary contention was whether the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing an application for leave to contest an eviction petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Rent Controller dismissed the application for condonation of delay, relying on judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act were not applicable in proceedings before the Rent Controller. The High Court upheld this view, stating that Section 18-A of the 1949 Act had an overriding effect on all other laws inconsistent with it, including the Limitation Act. 2. Interpretation of Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: The Petitioner argued that by virtue of Sub-section (7) of Section 18-A of the 1949 Act, the procedure prescribed for trial of suits under the Small Causes Courts Act was applicable to eviction petitions, thereby making the Code of Civil Procedure applicable. However, the High Court concluded that Section 18-A of the 1949 Act had an overriding effect and that Sub-section (7) of Section 18-A and Section 17 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, were not attracted when leave to contest had been declined. Consequently, the Rent Controller was not required to frame issues or try the eviction petition by calling upon the petitioner to lead evidence. 3. Requirement for recording evidence by the Rent Controller after refusal to grant leave to contest: The Petitioner contended that mere rejection of an application for leave to contest did not automatically entitle the landlord to an order of eviction. It was argued that the Rent Controller should have recorded the landlord's evidence and only after being satisfied with the grounds for eviction could an order be passed. The High Court, however, held that refusal to grant leave to contest amounts to admission of the contents of the eviction petition, and if the eviction petition satisfies the requirements of Section 13-B, an order of eviction must follow as a matter of course. 4. Jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act: The Petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurajil Aboobacker, which dealt with the power of the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to condone delay. However, the Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that the Rent Controller in the present case was a persona designata appointed by the State Government and not a court. Therefore, the Rent Controller did not have the authority to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court also referenced other cases, including Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh and Prakash H. Jain v. Marie Fernandes, which supported the view that specific statutory provisions governing eviction proceedings should be strictly construed and that the Rent Controller lacked the power to condone delays. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Rent Controller and the High Court, concluding that neither had committed any error of law in rejecting the Petitioner's application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed beyond the prescribed period. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, affirming that the Rent Controller did not have the jurisdiction to condone the delay under the Limitation Act, as the statutory framework of the 1949 Act did not provide for such authority.
|
